Thermal Decomposition of Solids and Melts: New Thermochemical Approach to the Mechanism, Kinetics and Methodology

Thermal Decomposition of Solids and Melts Hot Topics in Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry Volume 7 Series Editor: Judit...

Author: Boris V. L'vov

134 downloads 568 Views 4MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Thermal Decomposition of Solids and Melts

Hot Topics in Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry Volume 7 Series Editor: Judit Simon, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Hungary

The titles published in this series are listed at the end of this volume.

S

Thermal Decomposition of Solids and Melts

New Thermochemical Approach to the Mechanism, Kinetics and Methodology by

, Boris V. L vov St. Petersburg State Polytechnic University St. Petersburg, Russian Federation

ABC

, Boris V. L vov St. Petersburg State Polytechnic University St. Petersburg Russian Federation

Series Editor: Judit Simon Budapest University of Technology and Economics Hungary

Library of Congress Control Number: 2007932972

ISBN 978-1-4020-5671-0

e-ISBN 978-1-4020-5672-7

Printed on acid-free paper. © 2007 Springer

No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 springer.com

To Anna, my Wife with love

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Foreword

xi

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

Preface (Original Russian Edition) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xv

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii Part I

Thermal Decomposition: Basic Concepts

1 Historical Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Decomposition Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Preliminary Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Basics of the Congruent Dissociative Vaporization (CDV) Mechanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Direct Observation of the Primary Decomposition Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Induction and Acceleratory Periods and the Localization Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Shape and Position of the Nucleus . . . . . . . . . 2.6 Structure and Composition of the Solid Product . 2.7 Thermal Stability of Complex Gaseous Molecules . 2.8 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Decomposition Kinetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Preliminary Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 The Arrhenius Equation . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 The Hertz–Langmuir Equation and Langmuir Diffusion Equations . . . . . . 3.4 Modification of the Hertz–Langmuir Equation as Applied to Decomposition Reactions . . .

3 8

. . . . . . . . . . . .

11 11

. . . . . .

13

. . . . . .

14

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

18 22 25 28 30 30

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33 33 33

. . . . . . . . .

35

. . . . . . . . .

38

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

vii

viii

Contents

3.5

Equilibrium Pressure of Products in the Equimolar and Isobaric Modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6 Absolute Rates of Decomposition . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 Interpretation of A and E Parameters Through the Langmuir Vaporization Equations . . 3.8 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

39 42

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

43 47 48

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

51 51 51 52 53 54 55 58 59 59 60

5 Decomposition Conditions and the Molar Enthalpy . 5.1 Ratio of the Initial Decomposition Temperature to the Molar Enthalpy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Thermal Desorption and Criteria for its Identification 5.3 Impact of the Decomposition Mode and Reaction Stoichiometry on the Molar Enthalpy . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Decomposition of Carbonates in the Presence of CO2 . 5.5 Dehydration of Crystalline Hydrates in the Presence of H2 O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . .

65

. . . . . . . .

65 72

. . . . . . . .

75 76

. . . . . . . .

79 84

6 The Self-cooling Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 The Model for Temperature Calculation . . . . . . . 6.2 The Temperature Distribution in Powder Reactants 6.3 Experimental Evaluation of Self-cooling . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

87 87 89 94 98

4 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 Preliminary Remarks . . . . . . . . 4.2 The Arrhenius Plot Method . . . . 4.3 The Second-law Method . . . . . . 4.4 The Third-law Method . . . . . . . 4.5 Evaluation of the Molar Entropies 4.6 Precision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 Accuracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 Measurement Time . . . . . . . . . 4.9 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

Part II Interpretation and Quantitative Analysis of the Effects and Phenomena Accompanying Thermal Decomposition

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

7 The Topley–Smith Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 7.1 Historical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 7.2 Modelling of the Topley–Smith Effect for Li2 SO4 · H2 O . . . 101

Contents

ix

7.3 Modelling of the Topley–Smith Effect for CaCO3 . . . . . . . 106 7.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 8 Impact of Vapour Condensation on the Reaction Enthalpy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.1 The Contribution of Condensation Energy to the Reaction Enthalpy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 Increase of Reaction Enthalpy with Temperature 8.3 Reactant Melting and Decomposition Enthalpy . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . 111 . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

111 115 116 117

9 Thermochemical Analysis of the Composition of the Primary Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 10 Effect of the Reactant Crystal Structure on the of the Primary Decomposition Products . . . . . 10.1 Oxides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 Nitrides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.3 Phosphorous, Arsenic, and Antimony . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Composition . . . . . . . . 125 . . . . . . . . 125 . . . . . . . . 127 . . . . . . . . 130 . . . . . . . . 131

11 Vaporization Coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 12 The Kinetic Compensation Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 13 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Part III

Thermal Decomposition of Individual Substances

14 Instruments for Thermogravimetric Measurements . . . . . . 149 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 15 Measurement Conditions and Procedures for Isothermal Thermogravimetric Studies . . . . . . . 15.1 Evaluation of the Absolute Rate of Decomposition . . 15.2 Choice of the Decomposition Temperature . . . . . . . 15.3 Choice of the Residual Pressure of Gas in the Reactor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.4 Decomposition in the Presence of the Gaseous Product (Isobaric Mode) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . 153 . . . . 153 . . . . 156 . . . . 157 . . . . 158

x

Contents

15.5

Decomposition of Hydrates in Air and Carbonates in Argon and Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 15.6 Equilibrium Constant for Reactions with Three or More Decomposition Products . . . . . . . . . 160 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 16 Sublimation and Decomposition Reactions 16.1 Non-metals (phosphorus) . . . . . . . . . 16.2 Metalloids (Arsenic, Antimony) . . . . . . 16.3 Oxides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.4 Higher oxides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.5 Sulfides, Selenides, and Tellurides . . . . . 16.6 Nitrides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.7 Azides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.8 Hydroxides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.9 Clays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.10 Hydrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.11 Nitrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.12 Sulphates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.13 Carbonates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.14 Oxalates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

163 163 164 165 168 172 173 179 183 187 193 197 203 207 218 224

17 Final Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A1 Fundamental physical constants . . . . . . A2 Standard atomic masses of elements (except radioactive elements) . . . . . . . . A3 Coefficients of mutual diffusion of gases . . A4 Spectral and integrated radiant emittance for some metals and oxides . . . . . . . . . A5 Composition of dry ambient air . . . . . . A6 Saturated vapour pressure of water . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . 233 . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 . . . . . . . . . . . . 236 . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

238 239 239 239

Subject Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241

Preface

The appearance of this English edition of my book, first published in Russian in mid-2006, is related to the help and support of two prominent scientists: Professor Michael Brown (Rhodes University Grahamstown, South Africa) and Dr. Judit Simon (Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Hungary). The story is as follows. In the winter of 2006, in the process of exchange of views by email with Michael on some problems of decomposition kinetics, I asked him about the possibility of publishing my book in English. He suggested that I should contact Judit, the Series Editor of “Hot Topics in Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry”. My application was kindly accepted, considered, and approved. As a result, Judit strongly recommended this book to Springer for publication, and Michael kindly agreed to help me with linguistic improvements of my hurriedly translated book. In the process of editing, he made some critical comments and questions, which stimulated me to improve and clarify the text, but we did have to agree to put our differences of scientific opinions aside so as not to delay the process. Without this invaluable help, this book would not be as “readable” as I hope it is now. The author uses this opportunity to express his sincere thanks to Michael and Judit for their significant help and support. Although only about a year has gone after the preparation of the original edition of the book (in Russian), this English version of the manuscript has undergone considerable revision. These changes refer to Sections 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 8.2, 16.4, and Chapter 13. A new Section 15.6, Tables 13.1 and 13.2, and Figures 5.2 and 16.1 are added and many tables and figures have been improved. All these changes were made to clarify the explanation of the basic concepts of the new thermochemical approach to thermal decomposition, including mechanisms, kinetics, and methodology, and to make it suitable as a textbook for students. The author gratefully acknowledges the kind permission to use some figures from other sources of publication: figures reprinted from Spectrochimica Acta Part B, Spectrochimica Acta Review, Progress in Analytical Atomic Spectroscopy, and Thermochimica Acta with kind permission from Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; figures reprinted from the Proceedings

xi

xii

Preface

of the Royal Society with kind permission from the Royal Society of London, UK; figures reprinted from Journal of the American Ceramic Society with kind permission of Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK and figures reprinted from Analytical Chemistry with kind permission from the American Chemical Society, Washington DC, USA. The exact references are given in the figure captions. St. Petersburg, February 2007

Boris V. L’vov

Foreword

It has been an interesting task helping Professor Boris L’vov with the production of an English version of his book. Although we have, unfortunately, never met in person, we have had many contacts by email. He kindly presented me with a copy of the Russian edition of his book soon after publication and I was immediately frustrated by not being able to read it. Professor L’vov’s work is both original and controversial, and spread over an impressive number of primary publications. This literature had been condensed by the chief author into a book of manageable size, but still needed to be made accessible to the English-speaking world. One of my motives in offering to assist with the English edition was to “force” myself to pay close attention to his complex ideas and suggestions. I think I have come out of the process with a greater appreciation of some aspects, but still have to undergo a full “conversion experience”! Time just did not allow lengthy exchanges between us and these will, perhaps, have to be postponed for future debates in the literature. My hope is that this translation will bring Professor L’vov’s work to the attention of a wider audience and that this will promote constructive discussion of the assumptions made. Grahamstown, February 2007

Michael E. Brown

xiii

Preface (Original Russian Edition)

Solid-state reactions and, particularly, processes involved in the thermal decompositions of solid substances are a subject of intense interest for a very broad class of specialists: researchers, engineers, and technologists engaged in metallurgy, chemical industry, and materials sciences, including those specializing in the area of novel technologies (chemical vapour deposition, self-propagating high-temperature synthesis, mechanochemistry, and nanotechnologies). Nevertheless, very few monographs, reference handbooks, and especially textbooks on this and related issues have been published. This may be attributable to some stagnation in the field of theoretical description of these processes, which became evident as far back as the 1970s–1980s. The present monograph suggests a new approach to the reaction mechanisms, kinetics, and methodology of measurements, which is based on a thermochemical analysis of such processes. This approach draws on studies of the author performed during the last 25 years with the use of electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS) and mass spectrometry (MS) and, recently, of the methods of thermal analysis (TA) as well. The concepts developed are capable of accounting for the main features of reactions, including the mechanisms governing individual stages of a process, as well as of providing quantitative interpretation of many problems and unusual observations (for instance, the Topley–Smith effect) that have accumulated in this field. This approach has essentially laid a cornerstone for development of a self-consistent and rigorous theory of thermal decomposition of solids and melts. The new methods of measurement and calculation proposed have radically improved the precision and accuracy of determining the thermochemical parameters and, in this way, expanded considerably the potential use of TA in kinetics studies. The methods have been employed to obtain, for the first time, reliable kinetic characteristics and to uncover the mechanism of decomposition of several tens of substances belonging to different classes of inorganic compounds (crystalline hydrates, oxides, hydroxides, nitrides, azides, nitrates, sulfates, carbonates, and oxalates). The results obtained in these studies have been published in the literature in various journals spanning the period from 1981 to 2006). This book draws the work together to make it more accessible for researchers confronted with these issues.

xv

xvi

Preface

The exposition is divided into three main parts. The first part elucidates the basic physicochemical concepts (mechanism, kinetics, and methodology), which, in the second part, are used for the interpretation of the effects and phenomena making up the basis of research in the kinetics of solid-state reactions. Definition and substantiation of the basic physicochemical concepts is necessary because readers unacquainted with other publications of the author might find these points fairly unusual. The third part of the monograph contains a brief description of thermogravimetric (TG) experiments and the basic experimental and thermochemical data used by the author in the second part of the book. These data may turn out to be useful as subsidiary material in the practical activities of a reader confronted by corresponding problems. Also, as calculation methods become more sophisticated and the values of thermodynamic functions more accurate, these data may find use in refining the conclusions obtained. The Appendix to the book lists some additional tabulated data and physical constants used in the corresponding calculations. The terminology used has undergone the usual changes or refinements with time and experience. The terms “mechanism of dissociative vaporization”, “physical approach”, and “specific enthalpy”, introduced in previous communications by the author, have been replaced in this book by “mechanism of congruent dissociative vaporization”, “thermochemical approach”, and “molar enthalpy”. The notation of some physical quantities has likewise undergone changes. The author sincerely hopes that the material in this book will arouse the interest of the readers and stimulate revision of many ideas that have become established in this area. It is likely that some of the ideas expressed here will raise objections and initiate heated discussions. In the final count, this could only favour progress in the field. Any constructive critical comments of the readers will be accepted gratefully by the author and taken into account in our subsequent studies. The author feels deeply indebted to his students and colleagues who have taken active part in studies of thermal decomposition problems with electrothermal AAS, quadrupole MS, thermal analysis, and computational modelling. Their names feature in the list of authors of the corresponding publications. Particular thanks are due to Dr. Valery L. Ugolkov (Institute of Silicate Chemistry, St. Petersburg), whose active participation in our research during the recent 5 years has made it possible to complete the series of thermochemical studies that provided solid support for the ideas of the author and a justifiable purpose for the writing of this book; my colleague, Dr. Leonid K. Polzik, who has read carefully through the manuscript and suggested valuable corrections and comments; and, finally, but not least importantly, Dr. Andrew K. Galwey (Belfast), whose long-standing moral support has been invaluable in helping the author to maintain self-control and optimism in the hardest times of collision of his ideas with the generally accepted concepts. St. Petersburg, February 2006

Boris V. L’vov

Abbreviations

A, B, C A A A, B, C, D, E a, b, c Cv c1 c2 ceq D D0 d E E e f HT◦ J Jc Jp KP k M M M m NA n ne nt

Reaction products Absorbance Pre-exponential (“frequency”) factor in the Arrhenius equation Parameters used in calculations of temperature distribution in powders Stoichiometric coefficients related to products A, B, C Molar heat capacity (at constant volume) Coefficient c1 ≡ log(Peq /P∞ ) Coefficient c2 ≡ ln[−∆c HTo /(RT )] Equilibrium concentration Diffusion coefficient Diffusion coefficient under standard conditions (0◦ C, 1 bar) Diameter Base of decimal logarithms E parameter (“activation energy”) in the Arrhenius equation Base of natural logarithms Stoichiometry coefficient (f = aa bb cc ) Standard value of enthalpy at temperature T Absolute rate of vaporization Absolute rate of vaporization for crystal Absolute rate of vaporization for powder Equilibrium constant Rate constant Metal (unspecified) Molar mass Geometric average of molar masses for several products Mass Avogadro constant Number of layers Effective number of layers Total number of layers

xvii

xviii

P Pa Peq Peqp P Pw P∞ R R r r S ST◦ s sr s0 sm seff T Tapp Tf Tin Ts Tsub Tθ t u ¯ WC α αm αv β γ γ ∆ δ ε λ ν ρ σ τ

Abbreviations

Pressure Air pressure Equilibrium pressure Equilibrium pressure of primary product of vaporization Generalized value of pressure for several gas products Pressure of water vapour Saturation vapour pressure Reactant Gas constant Correlation coefficient Radius Oversaturation Standard value of entropy at temperature T Standard deviation Relative standard deviation Initial surface area Surface area at the instant of measurement Cross-section of effusion orifice Thermodynamic temperature Temperature for appearance of atomic absorption signal Furnace temperature Initial decomposition temperature Temperature of the sample Temperature of sublimation Isokinetic temperature Time Average velocity of molecules Clausing factor considering the orifice shape in the effusion cell Decomposition degree Decomposition degree at the instant of measurement Coefficient of vaporization Coefficient considering the vaporization congruence (at ν = 2) Surface tension Conversion factor from bar to Pascal Finite change Coefficient considering the vaporization congruence (at ν > 2) Emittance Length of free path Stoichiometric number Density Stefan–Boltzmann constant Coefficient considering the condensation energy transfer to reactant

Abbreviations

States of aggregation (s)

Solid

(l) (g)

Liquid Gas or vapour

Subscripts to change values of thermodynamic functions c d

Condensation Desorption

f r s v

Formation Reaction Sublimation Vaporization

Superscripts to symbols of vapour pressure and vaporization rate e i ext

Equimolar (mode) Isobaric (mode) External (pressure of gaseous product, in excess)

Crystal systems I

Cubic

II

Tetragonal

III

Hexagonal

IIIa

Trigonal

IV V VI

Rhombic Monoclinic Triclinic

Acronyms AAS BET CDV MS

Atomic absorption spectrometry Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (equation) Congruent dissociative vaporization Mass spectrometry

TA TG T–S

Thermal analysis Thermogravimetry Topley–Smith (effect)

xix

This page intentionally blank

Part I Thermal Decomposition: Basic Concepts

Chapter 1

Historical Overview Thermal decomposition of solids and melts is a process of basic significance involved in many natural phenomena and industrial technologies. Karst phenomenon and volcanic activity, rock weathering, dehydration of rock-salt deposits, which are actually manifestations of the evolution of the Earth and of the Universe as a whole, have been subjects of curiosity of mankind from the time immemorial. The history of our civilization is intimately connected with development of a variety of technologies based on heat treatment of natural materials with the purpose of obtaining new objects of practical importance. Among them are both the oldest earthenware and building crafts and pyrometallurgy, and many modern technologies closely associated with industrial chemistry, production of catalysts, ceramics and optoelectronic materials. Table 1.1 presents examples illustrating the use of thermal decomposition in science and technology. There is nothing strange therefore that research in this area started and proceeded concurrently with progress in chemical kinetics as a whole. The 1880s stand out as the years in which the famous “Etudes de dynamique

Table 1.1

Applications of thermal decomposition studies

Field of Science or Technology

Example of Possible Use

Physical chemistry of heterogeneous reactions Chemistry of solids

Development of the fundamentals of kinetics. Processes of burning of powders, rocket fuels Influence of crystal structure on the composition of the primary products of decomposition Rise of the accuracy, precision, and efficiency of measurements Interpretation of vaporization coefficients Studying of the atomization mechanism Production of technological materials (lime, soda, alumina) Production of metals (iron, cobalt, copper) Oxides and mixed catalysts Manufacturing of cement, concrete Refractory ceramics, a brick Faience and porcelain Safe life of medicines Terms and conditions of safe storage Recycling (processing) of products Formation and evolution of breeds (karsts) Evolution of the Solar System and the Universe Development of technologies for the production of materials for optoelectronics (GaN)

Thermal analysis TG after Knudsen–Langmuir Electrothermal AAS Chemical manufacture Pyrometallurgy Manufacture of catalysts Building manufacture Manufacture of ceramics Potter’s manufacture Pharmaceutical manufacture Production of explosives Polymers Geology and mineralogy Cosmochemistry Chemical vapour deposition (CVD)

3

4

Fig. 1.1 Jacob van’t Hoff (1852–1911). The Dutch chemist. One of the founders of physical chemistry, chemical kinetics, and stereochemistry. The first Nobel Prize Laureate in chemistry (1901)

1 Historical Overview

Fig. 1.2 Svante Arrhenius (1859–1927). The Swedish physical chemist. The founder of the theory of electrolytic dissociation. The Nobel Prize Laureate in chemistry (1903)

chimique” by van’t Hoff (Fig. 1.1) and the paper by Arrhenius (Fig. 1.2) with an interpretation of the exponential dependence of the rate of inversion of a water solution of sugar cane on temperature appeared [1, 2]. At about the same time Lehmann published a monograph [3] on solid-state reactions, where he reviewed studies of earlier researchers dealing with weathering, vaporization, and thermal dissociation of many substances, including the oxides of silver, mercury, copper, and iridium; the carbonates of ammonium and some metals; the sulphates of calcium, strontium, barium, and lead; and crystalline hydrates of a number of inorganic salts. Lehmann drew attention to some features in solid-state reactions, including the curious observations described in 1834 by Faraday, which are now considered as pioneering experimental studies of the structural sensitivity of the dehydration rate of crystalline hydrates. Crystals of easily eroding sodium salts (carbonates, phosphates, and sulphates), stored by Faraday for a few years, did not exhibit any visible deterioration. A fresh scratch on the crystal surface (birth of mechanochemistry) initiated, however, the onset of intense dehydration with a gradual expansion of the erosion zone until it covered the crystal’s entire surface. The 120 years that have elapsed after the beginning of systematic studies in the area of thermal decomposition of solids have witnessed an accumulation of an immense amount of experimental and theoretical material on the mechanisms and kinetics of this process. Three different approaches to the investigation of this problem have become established by now. The most popular approach is based on the concept of Arrhenius that chemical reactions involve only some of the molecules, the so-called “active” particles, their


Fig. 1.3 Henrich Hertz (1857–1894). The German physicist. The discoverer of electromagnetic waves and the creator of the theory of electromagnetic radiation. The unit of frequency (Hz) is named after him

5

Fig. 1.4 Irving Langmuir (1881–1957). The American physicist and physical chemist. His studies were devoted to hightemperature reactions and the chemistry of surface phenomena. The Nobel Prize Laureate in chemistry (1932)

actual fraction being determined by the energy barrier of the reaction and the temperature. The second approach makes use of the concepts of Hertz (Fig. 1.3), Knudsen and Langmuir (Fig. 1.4) on the vaporization of solids and differences in the kinetics of their decomposition in vacuum under equilibrium (in Knudsen’s effusion cells) and non-equilibrium (as it is believed to be) vaporization from a free surface (by Langmuir). The third approach, which has branched off the second approach fairly recently, rests upon the assumed equilibrium mechanism of congruent dissociative vaporization (CDV) as a primary stage in the thermal decomposition of any (solid or melted) substance with subsequent condensation of decomposition products with low volatility. Table 1.2 presents, necessarily briefly, the chronology of the most important events that have contributed to evolution of the above approaches [1–58]. A careful analysis of these data leads one to the following conclusions. First of all there is a parallelism in the establishment of the first two approaches. Both appeared roughly at the same time in the 1880s. The paper by Hertz [31] that stimulated the later studies of Knudsen [32] and Langmuir [33] was published in 1882, 2 years before that of van’t Hoff [1] and 7 years earlier than that by Arrhenius [2]. Subsequent accumulation of knowledge and the appearance of new ideas for both approaches also occurred concurrently and became practically completed by the 1960s. The further course of events in this field, as seen from the table, turned out to be limited to accumulation of experimental data and their analysis and generalization only. While the two approaches pursue essentially the same goals, which reduce to revealing the mechanism and developing the kinetic theory of the process, they evolved and still continue to evolve almost independently of one another.

6


Table 1.2 Chronology of the most important events in the development of various kinetic approaches Years The approach After Arrhenius

The Approach After Knudsen–Langmuir

1880s Thermodynamic deduction of exponential dependence of the reaction rate on temperature [1]. Interpretation of exponential dependence of reaction rate on temperature by Arrhenius [2]. The first monograph on thermal decomposition [3] 1900s Quantitative research of thermal decomposition Ag2 O [4]

Calculation of vapour condensation rate instead of vaporization rate in equilibrium conditions and verification of theory on an example of mercury evaporation [31]

1910s Thermodynamic substantiation of thermal decomposition on the surface of solid phase [5]. The concept of topochemical reactions [6] is introduced

Thermochemical Approach

Derivation of the equation for an effusion of vapour in a vacuum and introduction of concept of vaporization coefficient [32] Derivation of the equation for the evaporation rate from a free surface and its practical application for low-volatility metals [33, 34]

1920s Application of the Arrhenius equation to heterogeneous reactions [7, 8]. Polanyi–Wigner equation [9] The mechanism of multistage 1930s The Topley–Smith effect [10]. evaporation [35] is The Zawadzki–Bretsznajder proposed rule [11]. Herzfeld equation [12] 1940s The equations of the formal kinetics: after Avrami [13], Mampel [14], Prout–Tompkins [15], Erofeev [16] Development of effusion 1950s Development of methods of MS [36]. An improvement non-isothermal kinetics: of an effusion cell Erdey–Paulik–Paulik [17]. model [37]. Development of Theoretical and experimental the mechanism of generalization of studies: multistage evaporation [38] Garner [18]. Development of solid reactivity conception: Boldyrev [19] (continued)

1 Historical Overview Table 1.2

(continued)

1960s

Collection, analysis, and extension of studies: Young [20]. Appearance of the commercial equipment for TA. Foundation of Journal of Thermal Analysis. Analysis and extension of studies: Delmon [21]

1970s

Foundation of Thermochimica Acta journal. Collection, analysis and extension of studies: Barret [22]; Prodan–Pavlyuchenko– Prodan [23] Collection, analysis, and extension of studies: Brown–Dollimore– Galwey [24]; Prodan [25]

1980s

1990s

2000s

7

Collection, analysis, and extension of studies: Prodan [26]; Manelis et al. [27]; Boldyrev [28]; Galwey–Brown [29]; Boldyreva–Boldyrev [30]

Vapour pressure of metals (review): Nesmeyanov [39]. Measurement of coefficients of evaporation [40–43]. Vapour pressure of refractory compounds (review): Fesenko–Bolgar [44] Vapour pressure above oxides (reviews): Semenov–Nikolaev– Frantseva [45]; Kazenas– Chizhikov [46]

Vapour pressure above oxides (reviews): Semenov– Stolyarova [47]; Kazenas– Tsvetkov [48]

Vapour pressure above oxides (review): Kazenas [49]

Langmuir diffusion equation is used for calculation of the rate of Al2 O3 dissociative vaporization [50]

The method of absolute rate of decomposition has appeared [51]. Substantiation of the equimolar and isobaric modes of evaporation [52]. First MS study of evaporation of Pb [53] and Ni [54] nitrates The CDV mechanism is proposed [55]. Interpretation of coefficients of vaporization [56]. Modelling of the Topley–Smith effect [57] Application of the third-law method for determination of the reaction enthalpy [58]

Except for the monographs [24] and [29], where the methods of Knudsen– Langmuir are discussed on less than one page out of 340 and on about 10 pages out of 600, respectively, the other monographs of this list [18–30] ignore completely their existence. Monographs [44–49], in their turn, do not make any references to studies performed using the Arrhenius approach. The thermochemical approach was an outgrowth of the studies started in the 1960s [50–52] of the kinetics and mechanism of atomization of substances

8


by flame and electrothermal atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS). In the 1980s, they were complemented by studies of electrothermal vaporization using vacuum quadrupole mass spectrometry (QMS) [53, 54]. These series of studies laid a foundation for development of a thermochemical approach to interpretation of the process of thermal decomposition based, as already mentioned, on the mechanism of CDV of substances with subsequent condensation of low-volatility products of decomposition [55]. A characteristic of this direction is the broad use of experimental data accumulated earlier in the other two approaches. Regrettably, despite the progress reached in elaboration of a self-consistent theory of thermal decomposition and in quantitative interpretation of many unusual effects [56–58], the thermochemical approach has not received support and further development by other researchers. One should possibly ascribe this attitude to the fatigue and apathy that have built up in the recent decades as a result of futile attempts at coming closer to the final goal by traditional methods. The state of stagnation is admitted even by leading specialists in the field [59]. It became manifest, in particular, in the decay or reorientation of interests of the universally recognized scientific schools established in the middle of the last century by Professor Garner (University of Bristol), Profs. Brewer and Searcy (University of California, Berkeley), Profs. Pavlyuchenko and Prodan (Institute of General and Inorganic Chemistry, Minsk), and Prof. Boldyrev in the 1980s (Institute of Solid State Chemistry, Novosibirsk), in reduction of the volume of publications on solid-state reactions in the periodic press and at meetings and, as a consequence, in closing in 1990 of a specialized Journal “Reactivity of Solids” and in the refusal of leading physicochemical journals to publish papers reporting on studies in this field. This book is aimed at reviving interest in the investigation of the mechanisms and kinetics of thermal decomposition based on new concepts and a new methodology and generalization and quantitative interpretation of many of the most significant results obtained during the more than a 100-year period of history of these studies.

References 1. Van’t Hoff JH (1884) Etudes de dynamique chemique. Frederik M¨ uller et Co, Amsterdam 2. Arrhenius S (1889) Z Phys Chem 4:226–248 3. Lehmann O (1889) Molekularphysik. Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig 4. Lewis GN (1905) Z Phys Chem 52:310–326 5. Langmuir I (1916) J Am Chem Soc 38:2221–2295 6. Kohlsch¨ utter V (1919) Z Anorg Allg Chem 105:1–25 7. Hinshelwood CN, Bowen EJ (1921) Proc Roy Soc A99:203–212 8. Bruˇ zs B (1926) J Phys Chem 30:680–693 9. Polanyi M, Wigner E (1928) Z Phys Chem A139:439

References 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43.

44. 45. 46.

9

Topley B, Smith ML (1931) Nature 128:302 Zawadzki J, Bretsznajder S (1935) Z Elektrochem 41:215–223 Herzfeld KF (1935) J Chem Phys 3:319–323 Avrami MJ (1940) J Chem Phys 8:212–224 Mampel LH (1940) Z Phys Chem A187:43–57 Prout EG, Tompkins FC (1944) Trans Farad Soc 40:488–493 Erofeev BV (1946) Dokl Akad Nauk SSSR 52:515–519 (in Russian) Erdey L, Paulik F, Paulik J (1955) Nature 174:885 Garner WE (1955) (ed) Chemistry of the solid state. Butterworths, London Boldyrev VV (1958) Methods for investigation of the kinetics of thermal decomposition of solids. Tomsk University Press, Tomsk (in Russian) Young DA (1966) Decomposition of solids. Pergamon, Oxford Delmon B (1969) Introduction a la cinétique h´ et´ erog` ene. Technip, Paris Barret P (1975) (ed) Reaction kinetics in heterogeneous chemical systems. Elsevier, Amsterdam Prodan EA, Pavlyuchenko MM, Prodan SA (1976) Regularities of topochemical reactions. Nauka Tekhnika, Minsk (in Russian) Brown ME, Dollimore D, Galwey AK (1980) Reactions in the solid state. Elsevier, London Prodan EA (1986) Inorganic topochemistry. Nauka Tekhnika, Minsk (in Russian) Prodan EA (1990) Topochemistry of crystals. Nauka Tekhnika, Minsk (in Russian) Manelis GB, Nazin GM, Rubtsov YuI, Strunin VA (1996) Thermal decomposition and combustion of explosives and powders. Nauka, Moscow (in Russian) Boldyrev VV (1997) Reactivity of solids (on the example of thermal decomposition reactions). Siberian Branch Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk (in Russian) Galwey AK, Brown ME (1999) Thermal decomposition of ionic solids. Elsevier, Amsterdam Boldyreva EV, Boldyrev VV (1999) Reactivity of molecular solids. Wiley, Chichester Hertz H (1882) Ann Phys Chem 17:177–200 Knudsen M (1909) Ann Physik 29:179–193 Langmuir I (1913) Phys Rev 2:329–342 Langmuir I, Mackay GMJ (1914) Phys Rev 4:377–386 Volmer M (1939) Kinetik der Phasenbildung. Steinkopff, Leipzig Chupka WA, Inghram MG (1953) J Chem Phys 21:371–372 Motzfeldt K (1955) J Phys Chem 59:139–147 Hirth JP, Pound GM (1957) J Chem Phys 26:1216–1224 Nesmeyanov AN (1961) Vapour pressure of chemical elements. Akad Nauk SSSR, Moscow (in Russian) Hirth JP, Pound GM (1963) Condensation and evaporation. Nucleation and growth kinetics. Pergamon, Oxford Rutner E, Goldfinger P, Hirth JP (1964) (eds) Condensation and evaporation of solids. Gordon & Breach Science, New York Somorjai GA, Lester JE (1967) Evaporation mechanism of solids. In: Reiss H (ed) Progress in solid state chemistry. Pergamon, Oxford, pp 1–52 Searcy AW (1968) The kinetics of evaporation and condensation reactions. In: Searcy AW, Ragone D, Colombo U (eds) Chemical and mechanical behavior of inorganic materials. Wiley, New York, pp 107–133 Fesenko VV, Bolgar AS (1966) Evaporation of refractory compounds. Metallurgiya, Moscow (in Russian) Semenov GA, Nikolaev EN, Frantseva KE (1976) Application of mass spectrometry in inorganic chemistry. Khimiya, Leningrad (in Russian) Kazenas YeK, Chizhikov DM (1976) Vapour pressure and composition under oxides of chemical elements. Nauka, Moscow (in Russian)

10


47. Semenov GA, Stolyarova VA (1990) Mass spectrometric study of vaporization of oxide systems. Nauka, Leningrad (in Russian) 48. Kazenas YeK, Tsvetkov YuV (1997) Vaporization of oxides. Nauka, Moscow (in Russian) 49. Kazenas YeK (2004) Vaporization thermodynamics of double oxides. Nauka, Moscow (in Russian) 50. L’vov BV (1966) Atomic absorption spectral analysis. Nauka, Moscow (in Russian) 51. L’vov BV, Ryabchuk GN (1981) Zh Analit Khim 36:2085–2096 (in Russian) 52. L’vov BV, Fernandez HGA (1984) Zh Analit Khim 39:221–231 (in Russian) 53. Sturgeon RE, Mitchell DF, Berman SS (1983) Anal Chem 55:1059–1064 54. Dressler MS, Holcombe JA (1987) Spectrochim Acta B 42:981–994 55. L’vov BV (1990) Zh Analit Khim 45:2144–2153 (in Russian) 56. L’vov BV, Novichikhin AV (1997) Thermochim Acta 290:239–251 57. L’vov BV, Novichikhin AV, Dyakov AO (1998) Thermochim Acta 15:145–157 58. L’vov BV (2004) Thermochim Acta 424:183–199 59. Galwey AK, Brown ME (2000) J Therm Anal Cal 60:863–877

Chapter 2

Decomposition Mechanism 2.1

Preliminary Remarks

It appears reasonable to define the concept “decomposition mechanism”, to be discussed below, before we cross over to its consideration. (As René Descartes said: “Define the meaning of the words, and you will free mankind of half of its misconceptions.”) One may find in the literature different approaches to interpretation of this concept. This should be largely assigned to the methods employed by researchers to unravel it, and the goals pursued in its subsequent application. Besides the universally accepted kinetic description of a process based on a proper analysis of the shape of vaporization curves (see Sect. 2.4), the Arrhenius approach has been widely used to probe the mechanism of decomposition at the level of elementary processes in solids, which are associated with rearrangement of the crystal lattice. These studies rest on two fundamental branches of the physical chemistry of solids, namely, the theory of disorder and the theory of transport, whose foundations had been laid in the 1920s–1930s by the outstanding Russian physicist, Frenkel, and the well-known German physical chemists, Wagner and Schottky. The relation between disorder and the reactivity of crystals became a subject of research in a number of laboratories in the 1950–1960s. In Russia, these studies have been headed, starting from the 1950s, by Boldyrev [1, 2], who believes that it is the displacements of protons, ions, and electrons in the lattice that give rise to the rupture or formation of chemical bonds and, eventually, to decomposition of the reactant. The presence of defects influences strongly the rate-limiting stage of the reaction. Therefore, the main methods of investigation are based essentially on studying the effect of lattice disorder, introduced by doping, or mechanical treatment, or irradiation of the reactant, on its electrophysical properties (electrical conductivity, thermopower, and transport numbers) and the decomposition rate. This approach has received wide recognition in the classification of decomposition reactions. Analysis of the ionic and molecular changes occurring during the course of decomposition appears to have an extremely attractive potential. Its application to estimation of the kinetic parameters of a reaction is, however, curtailed by a lack of knowledge of the energetics of the individual stages in a reaction. Another stumbling block is the large diversity of schemes employed in interpretation of the decomposition mechanisms of different substances. The above can be readily exemplified by a description of the mechanisms of the rate-limiting stages in the decompositions of some compounds [2]: “The reaction of thermal decomposition of potassium permanganate is a typical

11

12

2 Decomposition Mechanism

redox reaction, with electron transfer playing a significant role. Decomposition of silver oxalate is a reaction in which transport of silver ions, particularly of interstitials, over the lattice plays a crucial role, especially in the initial stage. In the case of the aluminum hydride, the process is the same, but the hydride ion transfers over the anion lattice. In ammonium perchlorate, transport is mediated by proton transfer from the cation to the anion sublattice and its subsequent motion over the anion sublattice until capture by a proton trap, followed by regeneration of the acceptor center.” It remains unclear how one could use these schemes to control a reaction and predict the behaviour of a reactant when the conditions of its storage or decomposition change (atmospheric environment, temperature, sample morphology, aggregate state, etc.). The ways leading to this goal are too obscure indeed, a point recognized by the author of the monograph himself [2]. Interpretation of the decomposition mechanism along the lines of the Knudsen–Langmuir approach is based on the difference between the real vaporization rate of a reactant from a free surface (after Langmuir) and that of the same reactant in practically equilibrium conditions from effusion cells (after Knudsen). The ratio of these rates is called the vaporization coefficient, αv . Its value turns out in many cases to be smaller (quite frequently, by several orders of magnitude) than unity. As pointed out by Somorjai and Lester [3]: “All the information on the evaporation mechanism is hidden into a ‘correction factor’ which is applied to adjust the deviation of the evaporation rate far from the maximum evaporation rate in equilibrium.” Over the 90 years that have elapsed since the introduction of the vaporization coefficient into calculation of the gas effusion rate by Knudsen [4], interpretation of the quantity αv and, hence, of vaporization mechanisms has been the subject of numerous studies. The difference of αv from unity is usually assigned to the multistage nature of the vaporization process, specific features of the surface relief, or impurities and lattice defects of the reactant. Sometimes one adds among the reasons “difficulty of decomposition”, by which one understands the difference of the molecular form of primary gaseous products from the structure they usually assume in condensed phase. In the case of incongruent vaporization, one adds effusion or diffusion limitations encountered by gaseous products as they escape through the layer of the solid product. On the occasions where attempts at revealing any physical or chemical reasons for the difference of αv from unity fail, one assigns the decomposition mechanism to non-equilibrium processes without, however, offering a sound explanation of the nature of these non-equilibrium conditions [3]. No attempts to theoretically estimate the vaporization coefficients or find their interpretation on a common physical or chemical basis have been made before the appearance of the thermochemical approach. We believe that the major motivations for unraveling the mechanism of decomposition consists in its subsequent use for interpretation and prediction of the kinetics under different conditions of interest to the researcher, i.e., in the possibility of theoretical estimation of the thermochemical characteristics

2.2 Basics of the Congruent Dissociative Vaporization (CDV) Mechanism

13

of a process, in particular, of the heat (enthalpy) of reaction. If one accepts this approach, there will be no need to consider details of a reaction at the ionicmolecular level (at any rate, with our present fairly superficial knowledge of the mechanism as a whole). One should only determine the actual path of the process (as represented by one or several consecutive reactions) and know the composition, aggregate state, and stoichiometry of the reactants and products. The general mechanism of CDV being considered below allows to produce such thermochemical analysis.

2.2

Basics of the Congruent Dissociative Vaporization (CDV) Mechanism

Foundation Thermal decomposition of a solid reactant, R, is usually described by two types of reaction: by congruent dissociative vaporization of a reactant R into gaseous products A(g) and B(g), i.e., according to the scheme: R(s/l) ↔ A(g) + B(g)

(2.1)

or by incongruent dissociative vaporization involving formation of a solid product A(s) and a gaseous product B(g) by the scheme: R(s/l) ↔ A(s) + B(g)

(2.2)

The existence of these two fundamentally different schemes of decomposition is recognized (e.g., [5–7]) and is usually accepted without evoking any objections or doubt. However, in contrast to the first scheme, the second scheme appears, on closer examination, rather questionable. The point is that the forming solid product differs significantly from the solid reactant, not only in crystal structure, but also in its morphology. This manifests itself in the formation of conglomerates of separated nanoparticles of product that are practically “transparent” for an exhaust flow of gaseous products. Of even greater importance is the formation, in some rare cases, of two solid products in the form of two different phases. This occurs, for example, in the decomposition of talc (3MgO · 4SiO2 · H2 O), when enstatite (MgSiO3 ) and the amorphous form of SiO2 are produced simultaneously (see Sect. 2.6). It is difficult to imagine such a transformation of a solid reactant into solid product(s), with the different from initial spatial distribution, without any intermediate stage related to a change of its aggregate state. It appears much more probable to assume that solid products form as a result of collisions and condensation of low-volatility particles (atoms and molecules) that became free in the gaseous phase through decomposition by a common mechanism of CDV, i.e., by the scheme R(s/l) ↔ A(g) + B(g) → A(s) + B(g)

(2.3)

14

2 Decomposition Mechanism

This scheme may be condensed to the form R(s/l) ↔ A(g)↓ + B(g)

(2.4)

This reasoning leads to the main assumption (I) that the decomposition of all compounds most likely proceeds by CDV and, in the case of formation of low-volatility products, includes an additional stage of condensation of these products. The reader may find this reasoning not convincing enough. Therefore, other arguments, both direct and indirect, will be presented below for the validity of this assumption. Other Basic Assumptions In addition to this main assumption (I), which forms the foundation for the CDV mechanism, there are two other, more obvious assumptions, namely, (II) that primary products of decomposition may differ from their equilibrium forms, and (III) that the energy released in condensation of a low-volatility product in the reaction interface decreases partially the total enthalpy of the decomposition reaction (including the condensation stage) compared to that of the primary stage of dissociative vaporization. Consider now the essence and validity of these assumptions. The decompositions of oxides of some metals (CuO, HgO, PtO2 , and ZnO) at comparatively low temperatures ( Peqp , and, significantly, remains constant during the course of measurement (P ext = const). Both vaporization modes may occur during the same experiment and this reveals itself as a discontinuity in the Arrhenius plot because of the different

40

3 Decomposition Kinetics

Fig. 3.1 Arrhenius plot for the atomization of 5 ng of Al2 O3 in a flow of argon with content of about 0.01%O2 at a heating rate of 1, 000 K s−1 . The E parameters for the lowand high-temperature parts of the plot are 980 and 480 kJ mol−1 , respectively. (Reproduced from [27], with permission)

values of the molar enthalpy or E parameter for these modes (see Sect. 3.7). Such features in the shape of Arrhenius plots appear, in particular, in electrothermal AAS when studying atomization of metal oxides in an argon environment with an addition of oxygen [24, 25]. They were first observed by Sturgeon and Chakrabarti [26, 27] during atomization of the oxides of Al, Co, Cu, Ni, V, and Pb. Figure 3.1 displays an Arrhenius plot for Al2 O3 drawn in the log A − 1/T coordinates, where A is the absorbance, which may, as a first approximation, be considered proportional to the vaporization rate [27]. Most of the researchers in AAS, starting with [26, 27], attributed these discontinuities in plots to changes in the vaporization mechanism and/or in the chemical form of the reactant, for instance, to a transition from oxide dissociation at low temperatures to sublimation of free metal in the high-temperature domain. Interpretation of the mechanism was attempted by identifying the only measured parameter E with thermal effects of a variety of conceivable processes (or of individual steps of the whole process). In 1981, a method was proposed [25] to determine absolute vaporization rates. It included measurement of both Arrhenius parameters (see Sect. 3.6). On this basis, the existence of two different modes of dissociative vaporization (equimolar and isobaric) has been revealed [24]. This made it possible to abandon the arbitrariness in interpretation of the discontinuities [24].

3.5 Equilibrium Pressure of Products in the Equimolar and Isobaric Modes

41

Fig. 3.2 Arrhenius plot for the dehydration of CaC2 O4 · H2 O under an air atmosphere at a heating rate of 10 K min−1 . The E parameters for the low- and high-temperature parts of the plot are 281 and 147 kJ mol−1 , respectively. (Reproduced from [28], with permission)

(Nevertheless, in the quarter of a century that followed, no one except the present author made use of these concepts.) Similar discontinuities in Arrhenius plots are observed in thermal analysis (TA) as well, in particular, in the dehydration of crystalline hydrates performed in humid air. For illustration, Fig. 3.2 reproduces an Arrhenius plot for the dehydration of calcium oxalate monohydrate in an air flow, carried out under non-isothermal conditions by Dollimore et al. [28]. The equilibrium pressure of water vapour Peqp measured at temperatures of up to 400 K and comparatively moderate decomposition rates turns out to be lower than its partial pressure in air P ext , which implies that the decomposition occurs in the isobaric mode. Above 400 K, the equilibrium pressure of H2 O becomes higher than P ext , with the process becoming equimolar. The slope of the plot decreases to one half of its former value in full agreement with theory (see Sect. 3.7). Equilibrium Pressure of the Products The equilibrium quantity Peqp is defined by the relation (3.17) ∆r HT◦ = T (∆r ST◦ − R ln KP )

42


where ∆r HT◦ and ∆r ST◦ are, respectively, the enthalpy and the entropy of the decomposition reaction, and KP is the equilibrium constant defined as KP = PAa × PBb

(3.18)

As follows from the condition of congruent vaporization (3.14) b PB = PA a

MB MA

1/2 ≡β

(3.19)

Replacing PA with PB in Eq. 3.18 and recalling Eq. 3.17, the relationship for the equimolar mode is ∆r HT◦ ∆r ST◦ 1/ν e a a/ν exp − (3.20) =β exp PB = (β KP ) νR νRT and for the isobaric mode 1/a

PBi = βPAi = β

KP

b/a

(PBext )

=

β (PBext )

b/a

exp

∆r HT◦ ∆r ST◦ exp − aR aRT

(3.21)

Here PBext means the excess (external) pressure of the gaseous product B in the reactor, the superscripts e and i denote the mode employed (equimolar or isobaric), and ν =a+b (3.22) Equations 3.20 and 3.21 occupy a key place in this derivation. They describe the effect of the excess pressure of a gaseous product on the equilibrium pressure of this product and its dependence on the temperature and reaction stoichiometry.

3.6

Absolute Rates of Decomposition

Decomposition in Vacuum Substitution of the quantities PBe and PBi into Eqs. 3.14 and 3.16 yields the final expressions for calculation of the absolute rates of decomposition. Thus, for the decomposition of reactant R into volatile gaseous products A and B in accordance with reaction (3.10): ∆r HT◦ γMR ∆r ST◦ e a/ν exp − (3.23) β exp JΣ = νR νRT b(2πMB RT )1/2 for the equimolar mode, and JΣi =

∆r HT◦ γMR ∆r ST◦ β exp − exp aR aRT (2πMB RT )1/2 (P ext )b/a B

(3.24)

3.7 Interpretation of A and E Parameters

43

for the isobaric mode. Similarly, when reactant R decomposes into a lowvolatility product A and a gaseous product B by reaction (3.15): ∆r HT◦ γMB ∆r ST◦ a/ν exp − (3.25) β exp JBe = νR νRT (2πMB RT )1/2 for the equimolar mode, and JBi =

∆r HT◦ γMB ∆r ST◦ β exp − exp aR aRT (2πMB RT )1/2 (P ext )b/a

(3.26)

B

for the isobaric mode. Decomposition in a Foreign Gas Similarly, equations can be derived for the calculation of absolute decomposition rates in an atmosphere of foreign gases. Disregarding the differences in the diffusion coefficients of different gaseous products (A and B), one arrives eventually at the following final relations. For one-dimensional diffusion of both gaseous products from a plane surface: ∆r HT◦ γMR D a/ν ∆r ST◦ e β exp − (3.27) exp JΣ = zRT νR νRT for the equimolar decomposition mode, and JΣi

∆r HT◦ γMR D ∆r ST◦ β exp − = exp zRT (P ext )b/a aR aRT

(3.28)

B

for the isobaric mode. If only one gaseous product, B, escapes by onedimensional diffusion from a plane surface: ∆r HT◦ γMB DB a/ν ∆r ST◦ e β exp − (3.29) JB = exp zRT νR νRT for the equimolar decomposition mode, and JBi

∆r HT◦ γMB DB ∆r ST◦ β exp − = exp zRT (P ext )b/a aR aRT

(3.30)

B

for the isobaric mode. For a single spherical particle decomposing in a foreign gas, the expressions will be the same as Eqs. 3.27–3.30, but with z replaced with r.

3.7 Interpretation of A and E Parameters Through the Langmuir Vaporization Equations Relation Between the Quantities k and J To compare the Arrhenius equation with the Langmuir vaporization equations, consider first how the rate constant k is related to the absolute decomposition rate J. For the steady-state

44


decomposition of a spherical particle, which corresponds to the contracting sphere model [5, 8], dα = 3(1 − α)2/3 k (3.31) dt Equation 3.31 was proposed by Roginsky and Schultz [29] to describe the kinetics of a reaction at the stage where its rate slows down as a result of the decreasing crystal surface area. Using the relations connecting the mass (m), radius (r), and density (ρ) of a spherical particle, α ≡ 1 − m/m0 ; m = (4/3)πr3 ρ and J = −(dm/dt)(4πr2 )−1 , Eq. 3.31 can be transformed as shown in [30] to: J = ρr0 k

(3.32)

where m0 and r0 are the particle mass and radius at the initial instant of decomposition (t = 0). There is an essential difference between the decomposition rates expressed by the quantities J and k. Unlike J, which does not depend on the particle size, k is inversely proportional to the initial dimensions of the particle. For ρr0 = 1 (e.g., for ρ = 2, 000 kg m−3 and r0 = 0.5 mm = 5 × 10−4 m), the rates J and k are numerically equal. The difference between these rates increases proportionately with increasing size and density of the particles. Equation 3.32 permits conversion from relative values of the rate constants k expressed in per second to the absolute rates J in units of kg m−2 s−1 . This opens up an attractive possibility for the interpretation of data obtained by traditional measurement of the α − t kinetic curves in terms of the Langmuir vaporization equations. Interpretation of A and E Parameters Let us turn now to interpretation of the parameters entering the van’t Hoff thermodynamic relation (3.3), namely, of the A pre-exponential factor and the E parameter (the exponent). A comparison of Eq. 3.3 with the set of Eqs. (3.23)–(3.30) reveals that the exponential factor, exp[−E/(RT )], in Eq. 3.3 assumes two different forms in Eqs. 3.23–3.30, so that ∆r HT◦ ∆r HT◦ = (3.33) Ee = ν a+b for the equimolar decomposition mode and Ei =

∆r HT◦ ∆r HT◦ = ν−b a

(3.34)

for the isobaric mode. In both modes, parameter E corresponds to the molar enthalpy, i.e., to the reaction enthalpy per mole of primary decomposition products, with the exclusion of the product present in an excess amount. The difference between the physical meaning of parameter E used in the common (Arrhenius) and thermochemical approaches is illustrated schematically in Fig. 3.3.

3.7 Interpretation of A and E Parameters

45

Fig. 3.3 The physical meaning of the E parameter taken from the van’t Hoff fundamental equation within the framework of the Arrhenius and thermochemical approaches

A consideration of Eqs. 3.33 and 3.34 suggests an extremely important conclusion, namely, that a+b ν Ei = (3.35) = Ee ν−b a A comparison of this result with experiment is given in Sects. 5.3-5.5. The number of variables governing the A parameter is considerably larger. Two factors can be distinguished. The first (A1 ) is (conventionally) connected with the transport of gaseous products, and the second (A2 ), with the reaction entropy. These factors are listed in Table 3.1 (vacuum) and Table 3.2 (inert gas) according to the actual model and decomposition mode involved. Experimental Verification To demonstrate the validity of these relations, the expected value of the A parameter for the decomposition of CaCO3 in vacuum in the equimolar mode at 800 K (performed in the framework of an interlaboratory experiment [31]) was estimated. The following values of the quantities involved were used: MCO2 = 0.044 kg mol−1 , MCaO = 0.056 kg mol−1 , ◦ /ν = 159.1 J mol−1 K−1 , r0 = 7.5 × 10−6 m and ρ = 2, 930 kg m−3 . ∆r S800 Accordingly A = A1 A2 = (4.6 × 103 )(2.0 × 108 ) ∼ = 1012 s−1 . This value compares well with the vibrational frequency of the crystal lattice (at the interface) which can be theoretically estimated using the equation of Polanyi–Wigner [6] to be ∼1013 s−1 . At the same time, the figure thus found exceeds by an order of magnitude the value A ∼ = 1011 s−1 obtained by averaging the results obtained in the interlaboratory experiment [31]. The disagreement between the calculation and experiment could be expected because of the systematic underestimation of the experimental data (A and E) inherent in the Arrhenius plot method (see Sects. 4.2 and 6.3 below). In the same manner, the value of A for the CaCO3 decomposition in nitrogen carried out in the equimolar mode at 1,000 K was estimated. Factor A1 contains additional parameters such as the diffusion coefficient of CO2 in nitrogen at 1,000 K, DCO2 = 1.43 × 10−4 m2 s−1 [32], and parameter z, whose magnitude may be accepted as equal to the height of the crucible con◦ /ν = 155.6 J mol−1 K−1 taining the sample (∼5 mm). For 1,000 K, ∆r S1000 −1 8 and so A = A1 A2 = (7.1 × 10 )(1.4 × 10 ) ∼ = 108 s−1 . The mean

γβMR D 1 ρr0 bzRT (PBext )b/a exp[∆r ST◦ /(aR)]

exp[∆r ST◦ /(νR)]

A2

R(s/l) ↔ aA(g) + bB(g) i-mode

γβ a/ν MR D ρr0 bzRT

e-mode

A1

Factor


exp[∆r ST◦ /(aR)]

γβMB 1 ρr0 (2πMB RT )1/2 (PBext )b/a

R(s/l) ↔ aA(g)↓ + bB(g) i-mode

γβ a/ν MB ρr0 (2πMB RT )1/2

e-mode


γβ a/ν MB DB ρr0 zRT


γβMB DB 1 ρr0 zRT (PBext )b/a

R(s/l) ↔ aA(g)↓ + bB(g) e-mode i-mode

Factors of the Arrhenius A parameter for congruent dissociative vaporization in an atmosphere of foreign (inert) gas



A2

Table 3.2

γβMR 1 bρr0 (2πMB RT )1/2 (PBext )b/a

R(s/l) ↔ aA(g) + bB(g) i-mode

γβ a/ν MR bρr0 (2πMB RT )1/2

e-mode

Factors of the Arrhenius A parameter for congruent dissociative vaporization in a vacuum

A1

Factor

Table 3.1

46 3 Decomposition Kinetics

3.8 Conclusions

47

value of A averaged from 11 independent measurements in the interlaboratory experiment [31] was 3 × 106 s−1 , which is smaller than the theoretical value by more than an order of magnitude for the same reason as explained above. The equations presented in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 permit the estimation of both the absolute values of parameters A and their ratio for the isobaric and equimolar modes of decomposition. This ratio has the same form irrespective of the actual decomposition conditions (vacuum or foreign gas environment): β b/ν b∆ST◦ Ai = exp ext e b/a A aνR (PB )

(3.36)

For illustration, the ratio Ai /Ae for reactions with different stoichiometry, i.e., different b/a ratios, can be estimated. The mean value of the molar entropy ∆ST◦ /ν is 160 J mol−1 K−1 (see Table 3.2) and assuming PBext = 1 bar and β∼ = 1, the Ai /Ae ratios are 1.5 × 104 , 2.3 × 108 , and 5.2 × 1016 for b/a = 0.5, 1, and 2, respectively. As PBext is decreased to 10−5 bar, the values of Ai /Ae increase to 4.7 × 106 , 2.3 × 1013 , and 5.2 × 1026 . This is accompanied by a low-temperature shift of the Arrhenius plots which retain, however, their slope. The largest Ai /Ae ratios are reported [6] to be observed in dehydration of salts with a large content of water molecules. This fits the theory. For instance, when the dodecahydrate NiNa3 P3 O10 · 12H2 O decomposes to the dihydrate NiNa3 P3 O10 · 2H2 O (i.e., for b/a = 10) in vacuum and in the presence of 18 mbar H2 O, the Ai /Ae ratio, in accordance with Eq. 3.36, should be 10101 . Pavlyuchenko et al. [33] found a value of 1066 for the Ai /Ae ratio. Allowing for the huge error involved in measuring the slope of an Arrhenius plot (see Sect. 4.6) for the isobaric mode based on three closely lying experimental points at 60◦ C, 62◦ C, and 65◦ C, this disagreement between the theory and experiment may be considered quite reasonable.

3.8

Conclusions

The Langmuir vaporization equations thus open up broader possibilities for description of decomposition processes than the Arrhenius approach. First, the key physical quantity entering all vaporization equations is the equilibrium pressure of products, which is directly related to the thermodynamic parameters of the process. As a result, the A and E parameters of the Arrhenius equation receive a straightforward physical interpretation. Second, these equations take into account, besides temperature, a variety of factors affecting the decomposition kinetics, such as the composition, stoichiometry, and thermochemical characteristics of the reaction, the pressure of the excess gaseous products and of the foreign (inert) gas in the reactor, and even, physical properties of the reactant (the size of particles, molar mass, and density).

48


Third, these equations permit the calculation of the absolute rates of a process, a possibility that had been believed unrealizable before their first application in 1981 to the kinetics of solid decomposition [25]. The interest in theories of the transition state and of the activated complex was primarily stimulated by the possibility of calculating absolute reaction rates, although the attempts to use them in studies of heterogeneous processes met with only limited success [1, 2]. In contrast, the first comparison of theoretical with experimental values of the A parameters performed within the framework of Langmuir vaporization equations was much more successful [25]. An analysis of the vaporization equations has yielded important conclusions, which have permitted a quantitative interpretation of such phenomena as the T–S and compensation effects (see Part II). Among these conclusions is also invariability of the E i parameter of the Arrhenius equation for any excess pressure of a gaseous product, as well as the dependence of the E i /E e ratio on the stoichiometry of the decomposition products. During the period 1940–1960, some researchers (in particular, Penner [34]) made attempts at deriving the vacuum vaporization equation from the van’t Hoff–Arrhenius equation using the formalism of statistical mechanics [35]. The final expressions, however, all turned out to be similar to, or identical with, the Hertz–Langmuir equation. Contrasting the van’t Hoff–Arrhenius relation with the Langmuir vaporization equation thus does not seem to be useful and the van’t Hoff–Arrhenius equation applied to the vaporization process may be considered as a starting step on the way to the Langmuir equations.

References 1. Prodan EA, Pavlyuchenko MM (1965) (eds) Heterogeneous chemical reactions. Nauka Tekhnika, Minsk (in Russian) 2. Young DA (1966) Decomposition of solids. Pergamon, Oxford 3. Delmon B. (1969) Introduction a la cinétique h´ et´ erog` ene. Technip, Paris 4. Barret P (1975) (ed) Reaction kinetics in heterogeneous chemical systems. Elsevier, Amsterdam 5. Prodan EA, Pavlyuchenko MM, Prodan SA (1976) Regularities of topochemical reactions. Nauka Tekhnika, Minsk (in Russian) 6. Brown ME, Dollimore D, Galwey AK (1980) Reactions in the solid state. Elsevier, London 7. Prodan EA (1986) Inorganic topochemistry. Nauka Tekhnika, Minsk (in Russian) 8. Galwey AK, Brown ME (1999) Thermal decomposition of ionic solids. Elsevier, Amsterdam 9. Laidler JK (1984) J Chem Educ 61:494–498 10. Van’t Hoff JH (1884) Etudes de dynamique chemique. Frederik M¨ uller et Co, Amsterdam 11. Arrhenius S (1889) Z Phys Chem 4:226–248 12. Pfaundler L (1867) Ann Phys Chem 131:55 13. Bodenstein M (1899) Z Phys Chem 29:147–158, 295–314, 315–333, 429–448, 665–699 14. Hinshelwood CN, Bowen EJ (1921) Proc Roy Soc A99:203–212


References 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

49

Bruˇzs B (1926) J Phys Chem 30:680–693 Polanyi M, Wigner E (1928) Z Phys Chem A139:439 Eyring H (1935) J Chem Phys 3:107–115 Evans MG, Polanyi M (1935) Trans Faraday Soc 31:875–894 Hertz H (1882) Ann Phys Chem 17:177–200 Knudsen M (1909) Ann Phys (Leipzig) 29:179–183 Langmuir I (1913) Phys Rev 2:329–342 Matveev AN (1987) Molecular physics. Vysshaya Shkola, Moscow (in Russian) Langmuir I (1918) Phys Rev 12:368–370 L’vov BV, Fernandez HGA (1984) Zh Analit Khim 39:221–231 (in Russian) L’vov BV, Ryabchuk GN (1981) Zh Analit Khim 36:2085–2096 (in Russian) Sturgeon RE, Chakrabarti CL, Langford CH (1976) Anal Chem 48:1792–1807 Sturgeon RE, Chakrabarti CL (1978) Prog Anal At Spectrosc 1:5–199 Dollimore D, Evans TA, Lee JF, Wilburn FW (1992) Thermochim Acta 198:249–257 Roginsky S, Schultz E (1928) Z Phys Chem A138:21–41; Ukr Khim Zh 3:177–207 (in Russian) L’vov BV (1997) Thermochim Acta 303:161–170 Brown ME, Maciejewski M, Vyazovkin S, et al. (2000) Thermochim Acta 355:125–143 Kikoin IK (1976) (ed) Tables of physical constants. Atomizdat, Moscow (in Russian) Pavlyuchenko MM, Pysyak YaS, Zonov YaG, Prodan EA (1970) Vesti AN BSSR No 1:29–37 (in Russian) Penner SS (1948) J Phys Chem 52:367, 949, 1262 Dettorre JF, Knorr TG, Hall EH (1966) Evaporation processes. In: Powell CF, Oxley JH, Blocher JM (eds) Vapour deposition. Wiley, New York, pp 62–101

Chapter 4

Methodology 4.1

Preliminary Remarks

Books and reviews dealing with the kinetics of solid-state reactions (e.g., [1–3]) usually pay little attention to the analysis and comparison of the metrological characteristics of the methods employed in TA measurements although a correct choice of the method to be used in measurement and calculation of the quantity of interest determines the reliability of the results obtained. This chapter addresses these points. The parameters A and E (or ∆S and ∆H) are determined respectively with the use of an Arrhenius plot or the second-law (Knudsen–Langmuir) method. The third-law method, which has received wide recognition in equilibrium thermochemical studies [4], has not been used in kinetics investigations at all. The first publication on this subject appeared only in 2002 [5]. Studies of L’vov and his colleagues still remain the only attempts in this area (see review [6]).

4.2

The Arrhenius Plot Method

To determine the A and E parameters by the Arrhenius plot method, one usually invokes the Arrhenius equation in logarithmic form lnk = lnA − E/RT

(4.1)

neglecting the temperature dependence of the A parameter, and plots the logarithm of the rate constant (ln k) as a function of the inverse (absolute) temperature (1/T ). The slope of the plot is E=

R ln(k2 /k1 ) 1/T1 − 1/T2

(4.2)

The pre-exponential factor, A, however, as shown before (Tables 3.1 and 3.2), depends on T , both directly and through the diffusion coefficient, D, which is proportional to T 1.75 . Therefore, the values of E derived from the Arrhenius plot should be corrected using the following general relation [7] Ecor =

R ln(k2 /k1 ) nR ln(T2 /T1 ) − 1/T1 − 1/T2 1/T1 − 1/T2

(4.3)

where n is the exponent of the true power dependence of the A parameter on T . 51

52

4 Methodology

The second term of Eq. 4.3 can be recast, to within an error of less than 1% for T2 /T1 < 1.65, in the form nRT ln(T2 /T1 ) ∼ nR ln(T2 /T1 ) = = nRT 1/T1 − 1/T2 (T2 − T1 )/T

(4.4)

where T = (T1 × T2 )1/2 . Thus, Eq. 4.3 transforms to Ecor = E − nRT

(4.5)

For decomposition in vacuum, n = −0.5 and if the process occurs in a foreign gas, n = +0.75. Accordingly, for T = 1, 000 K the correction amounts to about +4.2 kJ mol−1 in the first case, and to −6.2 kJ mol−1 , in the second. Correction of E for temperature also requires correction of the A parameter. Substituting the value of Ecor from Eq. 4.5 into Eq. 4.1 yields (lnA)cor = lnA − n

(4.6)

If these corrections are neglected, the difference between the ln A parameters measured in vacuum and in a foreign gas would constitute at 1,000 K about 1.25, and between the E parameters, approximately 10.4 kJ mol−1 . The majority of researchers using the Arrhenius plot method fail to take these corrections into account, although the final figures for the E parameter are given frequently (see, e.g., [8]) to within a few kJ mol−1 , or even a few tenths of kJ mol−1 , and the values of lnA, to within an uncertainty of a few tenths of percent.

4.3

The Second-law Method

Application of the second-law method draws on the equation R ln KP = ∆r ST◦ −

∆r HT◦ T

(4.7)

By measuring KP at different temperatures and plotting ln KP vs 1/T , one readily finds both parameters, more specifically, ∆r HT◦ from the slope of the straight line and ∆r ST◦ from the intercept of the straight line on the ordinate axis. Quite frequently a simplified (one-parameter) version of this method, based on the use of the Clausius–Clapeyron equation, is used ∆r HT◦ d ln P = dT RT 2

(4.8)

Integration of Eq. 4.8 gives R ln P = −

∆r HT◦ + const T

(4.9)

4.4 The Third-law Method

53

To find the value of ∆r HT◦ by this method, it is necessary to know only the dependence of pressure on temperature rather than the absolute values of P . This is an essential point, because some techniques, in particular, MS and optical absorption spectrometry (atomic and molecular) are capable of determining only quantities proportional to P (the ion current I and absorbance A). In this case, a plot drawn in the ln I vs 1/T or ln A vs 1/T coordinates can yield merely the value of ∆r HT◦ (from the slope of the straight line), because the intercept of the straight line on the ordinate axis is now an arbitrary constant rather than ∆r ST◦ .

4.4

The Third-law Method

Just as the second-law method, the third-law method is based on use of the relation (4.10) ∆r HT◦ = T (∆r ST◦ − R ln KP ) The equilibrium constant, KP , can de expressed through the experimentally determined equilibrium pressure of the gaseous product, PB . With the use of Eqs. 3.20 and 3.21, Eq. 4.10 can be rewritten as: ∆r HT◦ = T (∆r ST◦ + aR ln β − νR ln PB )

(4.11)

for the equimolar decomposition mode and ∆r HT◦ = T (∆r ST◦ + aR ln β − bR ln PBext − aR ln PB )

(4.12)

for the isobaric mode. As seen from these expressions, in order to determine the enthalpy, one has to know, besides the temperature and pressure of the gaseous product, PB , the entropy, ∆r ST◦ , the stoichiometry of the reaction (a and b coefficients) and, for the isobaric mode, the excess pressure, PBext , as well. In contrast to the second-law and Arrhenius plot methods, however, determination of the enthalpy reduces, in this case, to a measurement, in principle, at one temperature only. Equations 4.11 and 4.12 allow a simplification by excluding the correction term, aR ln β, which takes into account the differences in molar masses and stoichiometric coefficients between the products of decomposition. This can a/2 b/2 be done by replacing the partial pressures PA /(aa MA ) and PB /(bb MB ) 1/2 in Eqs. 3.14 and 3.16 with a generalized quantity P /(f 1/ν M ) obeying the condition ν P PAa PBb = (4.13) a/2 b/2 ν/2 aa MA bb MB fM ν

where f = aa bb and M = MAa MBb . Now Eqs. 4.11 and 4.12 acquire the form ∆r HT◦ = T (∆r ST◦ − νR ln P )

(4.14)

54

and

4 Methodology

∆r HT◦ = T (∆r ST◦ − bR ln PBext − aR ln P )

(4.15)

where

f 1/ν (2πM RT )1/2 JΣ (4.16) γMR for the case of reactant decomposition in vacuum into the gaseous products A and B, and f 1/ν (2πM RT )1/2 P = JB (4.17) γbMB for the case of reactant decomposition in vacuum into the low-volatility product A and gaseous product B. P =

4.5 Evaluation of the Molar Entropies The lack of values of ∆r ST◦ , or of tabulated data necessary for their calculation, would seem at first glance to curtail seriously the application of the third-law method. In reality, for most substances, the absolute values of the entropy for ◦ ) and the corresponding temperature corrections standard conditions (∆r S298 ◦ ◦ (ST − S298 ) can be found tabulated in many reference handbooks [4, 9–11]. Nevertheless, for some compounds, even quite common ones, for instance for low-volatility salt molecules in the gas phase, these data are lacking. In these cases, it is sometimes possible to evaluate the entropy from a comparison with the values of ∆r ST◦ available for similar molecules of other metals. This approach was used, in particular, to evaluate the value of ∆r ST◦ for the molecules of Li2 SO4 , CaSO4 , and CuSO4 [12]. A more general approach for evaluation of the molar entropy, ∆r ST◦ /ν, was proposed in [5]. In place of the real values of ∆r ST◦ /ν for 20 different reactants their averaged value (148 ± 17 J mol−1 K−1 ) was used. This results only in a slight increase (by 2–3%) of the discrepancy between the final results of the determination of ∆r HT◦ and the expected figures. This approach was subsequently refined in [6]. An analysis of the values of ∆r ST◦ /ν performed for 50 different compounds revealed substantial differences between reactants decomposing with the formation of free metal atoms and those undergoing decomposition to metals bound in molecules. As evident from Tables 4.1 and 4.2, the mean value of ∆r ST◦ /ν is 136 ± 9 J mol−1 K−1 in the first case, and 160 ± 9 J mol−1 K−1 in the second. In both cases, the relative standard deviation is one half of its value for all the 50 reactants. The potential inherent in this approach is far from being exhausted, so that, in particular, in view of the noticeable differences in the entropy of atomic vapours among some metals, one could propose corrections which would further reduce the scatter of the ∆r ST◦ /ν values from their mean figures.

4.6 Precision

55

Table 4.1 The molar entropies for CDV reactions at PB ∼ = 10−7 bar (metal-product is in the atomic form) [4, 9–11] Reaction

T (K)

FeO ↔ Fe(g) + 1/2 O2 CoO ↔ Co(g) + 1/2 O2 NiO ↔ Ni(g) + 1/2 O2 MgO ↔ Mg(g) + 1/2 O2 MnO ↔ Mn(g) + 1/2 O2 Cu2 O ↔ 2Cu(g) + 1/2 O2 CdO ↔ Cd(g) + 1/2 O2 HgO ↔ Hg(g) + O ZnO ↔ Zn(g) + O CdS ↔ Cd(g) + 1/2 S2 CdSe ↔ Cd(g) + 1/2 Se2 ZnS ↔ Zn(g) + 1/2 S2 ZnSe ↔ Zn(g) + 1/2 Se2 Be3 N2 ↔ 3Be(g) + 1.5N + 1/4 N2 Mg3 N2 ↔ 3Mg(g) + 1.5N + 1/4 N2 BN ↔ B(g) + 1/2 N2 AlN ↔ Al(g) + 1/2 N + 1/4 N2 GaN ↔ Ga(g) + 1/2 N + 1/4 N2 InN ↔ In(g) + 1/2 N + 1/4 N2 Si3 N4 ↔ 3Si(g) + 2N + N2 NaN3 ↔ Na(g) + N + N2 KN3 ↔ K(g) + N + N2 Pb(N3 )2 ↔ Pb + N + N2 + N3 AgNO3 (l) ↔ Ag(g) + NO2 + 1/2 O2 AgNO3 ↔ Ag(g) + NO2 + 1/2 O2 Average ± s (n = 25)

1,200 1,100 925 1,600 1,600 800 1,300 680 1,260 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,600 1,200 1,800 1,800 1,200 1,120 1,700 300 300 300 570 480

a

∆ST◦ /ν a (J mol−1 K−1 ) 130.0 140.0 152.0+ 137.9 127.3 128.0 129.0 129.0 134.1 122.2− 119.7− 133.2 125.0− 135.1 130.1 154.7+ 148.5+ 135.3 138.3 155.3+ 133.8 133.6 141.9 128.5 142.4 136 ± 9

Values ∆ST◦ /ν outside the interval 136 ± 9 J mol−1 K−1 are noted by marks: − or +

4.6

Precision

As evident from an analysis of thermodynamic data (primarily of the enthalpies of formation and sublimation) listed for several hundreds of substances in a reference book [4], determination of these constants by the third-law method yields values more precise, on the average, by an order of magnitude than those obtained using the second-law method. This can be traced to ∆r HT◦ depending differently on random and systematic errors in determination of the true reactant temperature and measurement of the variables P , J, or k, a point which becomes obvious when comparing Eqs. 4.10– 4.12 with Eq. 4.18 below ∆r HT◦ =

1 Pmax Tmax Tmin Pmax = R ln −1 −1 R ln P Tmax − Tmin Pmin Tmin − Tmax min

(4.18)

56

4 Methodology

Table 4.2 The molar entropies for CDV reactions at PB ∼ = 10−7 bar (metal product is in the molecule form) [4, 9–11] Reaction

T (K)

2P(red) ↔ P2 (g) 6As ↔ As4 (g) + As2 (g) 6Sb ↔ Sb4 (g) + Sb2 (g) SiO2 ↔ SiO(g) + O SnO2 ↔ SnO(g) + O Pb3 O4 ↔ 3PbO(g) + O Be(OH)2 ↔ BeO(g) + H2 O Mg(OH)2 ↔ MgO(g) + H2 O Ca(OH)2 ↔ CaO(g) + H2 O Sr(OH)2 ↔ SrO(g) + H2 O Ba(OH)2 ↔ BaO(g) + H2 O Zn(OH)2 ↔ ZnO(g) + H2 O Cd(OH)2 ↔ CdO(g) + H2 O MgCO3 ↔ MgO(g) + CO2 CaMg(CO3 )2 ↔ CaO(g) + MgO(g) + 2CO2 CaCO3 ↔ CaO(g) + CO2 SrCO3 ↔ SrO(g) + CO2 BaCO3 ↔ BaO(g) + CO2 MgSO4 ↔ MgO(g) + SO2 + O BaSO4 ↔ BaO(g) + SO2 + O Cd(NO3 )2 ↔ CdO(g) + 2NO2 + O Pb(NO3 )2 ↔ PbO(g) + 2NO2 + O Li2 SO4 · H2 O ↔ Li2 SO4 (g) + H2 O CaSO4 · 2H2 O ↔ CaSO4 (g) + 2H2 O CuSO4 · 5H2 O ↔ CuSO4 (g) + 5H2 O Average ± s(n = 25)

600 550 650 1,800 1,240 700 400 530 570 595 600 298 298 670 800 860 910 1,060 1,010 1,390 550 530 330 298 298

a

∆ST◦ /ν a (J mol−1 K−1 ) 162.3 157.3 152.9 155.8 160.7 153.7 169.0 163.0 153.5 151.7 140.0− 168.2 164.4 174.8+ 166.0 158.0 161.0 142.0− 171.0+ 152.0 163.0 160.0 175.9+ 159.8 159.1 160 ± 9

Values ∆ST◦ /ν outside the interval 160 ± 9 J mol−1 K−1 are noted by marks: − or +

Here the quantities Pmax and Pmin are the pressures corresponding to the maximum and minimum temperatures of the experiment. (When drawing Arrhenius plots, the quantities J or k are used in place of the pressures P ). It can be seen that these expressions differ primarily in the presence of an additional factor in Eq. 4.18, namely, of the ratio Tmax /(Tmax −Tmin ) or Tmax /∆T . Another, less significant difference, lies in the use in Eqs. 4.10–4.12 of one variable, Pmin in place of two (Pmax and Pmin ). A simple numerical example can be used to demonstrate this difference. When measuring within a temperature interval from Tmin = 900 K to Tmax = 1, 000 K (a range fairly typical, for instance, of calcite decomposition), a twofold difference in the magnitude of Pmax /Pmin (or kmax /kmin ) will produce an error of 52 kJ mol−1 in the second-law and the Arrhenius plot methods. (From Eq. 4.18: [1, 000 × 900/(1, 000 − 900)]R ln 2 = 51.9 kJ mol−1 ). For the same twofold difference in the absolute rate of decomposition from its true value, an error in determination of ∆r HT◦ by the third-law method (at T = 900 K) is only 5.2 kJ mol−1 . (From Eq. 4.12: 900R ln 2 = 5.19 kJ mol−1 .)

4.6 Precision

57

Thus, the error inherent in the use of the third-law method is indeed an order of magnitude lower than that provided by the two other methods. Using the ratio of two independent variables (Pmax and Pmin ) in Eq. 4.18 in place of one (Pmin ) in Eqs. 4.11 and 4.12 should further increase (by a factor √ 2) the difference in precision. As the number of independent measurements increases above four, the last effect becomes cancelled through averaging of the results. On the whole, however, the impact of this factor on the difference in precision of these methods is not large. The Ratio Tmax /∆T in Experiments Reported It is instructive to examine the distribution of the number of publications as a function of the value of Tmax /∆T used in the experiments reported. Figure 4.1 is a plot of such a distribution based on the data collected by L’vov [13] from the book by Galwey and Brown [2]. The maximum of this distribution lies at the value Tmax /∆T = 10, with an average of Tmax /∆T obtained from the analysis of 220 publications being 16. As can be seen, there are some cases when this ratio and therefore a loss of precision (in comparison with the third-law method) reach values of 30–50. The results of measurements obtained under such conditions certainly inspire very little confidence. An analysis of publications that have appeared in recent years [5, 12–24] reveals that, where the molar enthalpy (the E parameter) was determined by the third-law method, the random error (relative standard deviation sr ), which

Fig. 4.1 The distribution of publications on the determination of the E parameter by the Arrhenius plot method as a function of Tmax /∆T ratio, in steps of equal increments (0.3). 220 items are included

58

4 Methodology

is a characteristic of the reproducibility of the measurements, turns out to be less than 2%. This figure corresponds to not more than twofold variations of the decomposition rate J. In half of the cases, sr < 1%. With due account of the random errors typical of the second-law and Arrhenius plot methods, which may reach as high as 10%, the above theoretical estimates of precision appear reasonable enough.

4.7

Accuracy

Besides random variations, the primary variables may undergo systematic deviations which may affect the correctness of the determination of the parameter in question. Such deviations may very often result from an overestimation of the decomposition temperature originating from self-cooling of the reactant (see Chapter 6). The effect of this factor may become particularly pronounced for the upper points of the temperature interval used in measurements by the second-law or Arrhenius plot methods. Assuming the fairly typical conditions mentioned above, namely Tmin = 900 K to Tmax = 1, 000 K with an error of 10 K in the estimate of the maximum temperature (i.e., when using Tmax = 990 K for the calculations) will result in a systematic error in determination of ∆r HT◦ of 9% in place of only 1% for the third-law method. Thus, just as in the case of random errors, the difference in the magnitude of the systematic error characterizing the third-law method, as opposed to the two other methods, is as large as an order of magnitude. This theoretical estimate is borne out by the data obtained in the highvacuum decompositions of the carbonates, hydrates, sulphates, and hydroxides (Chapter 16). In full agreement with theoretical estimates (see Chapter 6), the difference in temperature between the temperature-stabilized heater, say, a crucible and a sample contained in this crucible is, under high-vacuum conditions, a few tens of degrees and may become, in extreme cases, as high as 3% of the heater temperature. In many cases where the second-law and the Arrhenius plot methods are employed, this systematic error would translate into an underestimation of the values of ∆r HT◦ and E by 15–20%. Another reason that can account for the systematic differences between the values of ∆r HT◦ (II), measured by the second-law and Arrhenius plot methods, and those of ∆r HT◦ (III) measured by the third-law method, is the systematic decrease of the contribution of the condensation energy to the reaction enthalpy with increasing temperature and the ensuing slight increase of ∆r HT◦ (III) and a substantially larger decrease of ∆r HT◦ (II). This effect will be considered in detail in Sect. 8.2. One more typical systematic error that arises in determination of the E parameter with the Arrhenius plot method is the fairly arbitrary choice of kinetic model used to estimate the rate constant k from primary TA measurements. This statement is confirmed by numerous studies generalized, in

4.9 Conclusions

59

particular, in [8]. When invoking the third-law method, the equilibrium pressure of the gaseous product which enters the calculations is unambiguously related to the absolute rate J measured under steady-state decomposition conditions, thus excluding completely such systematic errors. The uncertainty in the values of the entropy derived from thermochemical data usually does not exceed 1 J mol−1 K−1 and, hence, cannot practically affect the final results of the determination with the third-law method. If, however (in the absence of reliable data), one uses averaged values of ∆r ST◦ /ν known to within ± 9 J mol−1 K−1 (see Sect. 4.5) in the calculation, this factor can no longer be neglected, because the error in determination of the enthalpy becomes as high as 3%. Even in this case, however, this restriction can hardly be a serious obstacle to the use of this method.

4.8

Measurement Time

Application of the third-law method at a single temperature cuts substantially the total measurement time compared to the time expended in using the second-law or Arrhenius plot methods. An experiment conducted at a single temperature takes up about 3–4 h, including the time required for the heating and cooling of the furnace. This does not exceed the time needed for measurements by the fastest non-isothermal TA methods, particularly if the measurements are repeated as a minimum at three different heating rates. There are, however, much longer versions of isothermal and non-isothermal methods. For instance, a measurement of the E parameter by the rate-jump method [25, 26] may take up to a 100 or more hours.

4.9

Conclusions

A comparison of three different methods by which the enthalpy of decomposition reactions can be determined shows the third-law method to excel over the other two in all respects. It is superior in precision, accuracy, and output (productivity). This conclusion finds support in the opinion generally accepted in equilibrium thermochemistry [4]. The question then is why the third-law method has never, until the appearance of publication [5] in 2002, been invoked in studies of decomposition kinetics. Several possible reasons could be proposed. •

The lack of a clear idea of the advantages this method is capable of offering, compared with known methods, as well as the apparent difficulties associated with estimation of the reaction entropy.

60 •

•

•

4 Methodology

The apparent inapplicability of the method to measurements (by the Arrhenius approach) of rate constants k, which at first glance are not related to the absolute value of equilibrium pressure of the primary product Peqp . However, none of the above reasons can account for the fact that this method is ignored in measurements of the vaporization rate from a free surface (after Langmuir), while it is employed widely in effusion studies (after Knudsen). Mechanical extension of the generally accepted concepts of the absence of equilibrium in homogeneous gaseous reactions, in particular, in monomolecular reactions in the low-pressure field [27], to the kinetics of heterogeneous reactions. The experimentally observed differences between the decomposition rates of the same compounds from the effusion cells and from the free surface, which led to the conclusion that decomposition reactions should be classed among non-equilibrium processes that do not obey the laws of equilibrium thermodynamics.

The last consideration is possibly the most convincing argument against the use of the third-law method in kinetic studies of solid-state reactions. If the possibility of formation in the course of decomposition of primary gaseous products differing from their equilibrium forms is excluded, the observed differences in the rates have to be assigned to the decomposition mechanism itself. Strangely enough, the possibility of this difference has not yet been recognized, although the assumption of a possible difference in composition between the primary and final products of decomposition was noted by Somorjai and Lester 40 years ago [28] and, furthermore, such difference in composition was clearly observed in decomposition of some metal oxides still earlier [29, 30]. This comment refers, however, to gaseous decomposition products and does not include the extremely broad class of reactions resulting in formation of solid products. In the latter case, a deviation from ideal equilibrium is revealed in congruent vaporization of the reactant rather than in deviation of the chemical composition of the products. Additional quantitative arguments, which support the equilibrium character of decomposition mechanisms, are considered in Part II.

References 1. Brown ME, Dollimore D, Galwey AK (1980) Reactions in the solid state. Elsevier, London 2. Galwey AK, Brown ME (1999) Thermal decomposition of ionic solids. Elsevier, Amsterdam 3. Prodan EA (1986) Inorganic topochemistry. Nauka Tekhnika, Minsk (in Russian) 4. Glushko VP (1978–1982) (ed) Thermodynamic properties of individual substances, Handbook in 4 volumes. Nauka, Moscow (in Russian)


References 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

61

L’vov BV (2002) Thermochim Acta 389:199–211 L’vov BV (2004) Thermochim Acta 424:183–199 L’vov BV, Ryabchuk GN (1981) Zh Analit Khim 36:2085–2096 (in Russian) Brown ME, Maciejewski M, Vyazovkin S, et al. (2000) Thermochim Acta 355:125–143 Glushko VP (1965–1982) (ed) Thermodynamic constants of substances, Handbook in 10 volumes. Akad Nauk SSSR, Moscow (in Russian) Kireev VA (1975) Methods of practical calculations in thermodynamics of chemical reactions. Khimiya, Moscow (in Russian) Ryabin VA, Ostroumov MA, Svit TF (1977) Thermodynamic characteristics of substances, Handbook. Khimiya, Leningrad (in Russian) L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2003) J Therm Anal Cal 74:697–708 L’vov BV (2005) J Therm Anal Cal 79:151–156 L’vov BV, Polzik LK, Ugolkov VL (2002) Thermochim Acta 390:5–19 L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2003) Thermochim Acta 401:139–147 L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2004) Thermochim Acta 409:13–18 L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2004) Thermochim Acta 410:47–55 L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2004) Thermochim Acta 411:73–79 L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL, Grekov FF (2004) Thermochim Acta 411:187–193 L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2004) Thermochim Acta 413:7–15 L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2004) Thermochim Acta 424:7–13 L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2005) Russian J Appl Chem 78:379–385 L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2005) J Therm Anal Cal 82:15–22 L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2005) Thermochim Acta 438:1–8 Nahdi K, Llewellyn P, Rouquerol F, Rouquerol J, et al. (2002) Thermochim Acta 390:123–132 S¨ orensen OT, Rouquerol J (2003) (eds) Sample-controlled thermal analysis. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht Kondratiev VN, Nikitin EE (1981) Chemical processes in gases. Nauka, Moscow (in Russian) Somorjai GA, Lester JE (1967) Evaporation mechanism of solids. In: Reiss H (ed) Progress in solid state chemistry. Pergamon, Oxford, pp 1–52 Harano Y (1961) Nippon Kagaku Zasshi 82:152–155 Mitani K, Asakura Y (1965) Bull Chem Soc Japan 38:901–904


Part II Interpretation and Quantitative Analysis of the Effects and Phenomena Accompanying Thermal Decomposition

Chapter 5

Decomposition Conditions and the Molar Enthalpy The goal of Part II is to attempt to interpret, in terms of the thermochemical approach developed in this work, some unusual effects and phenomena accompanying the decompositions of solids and melts and to use these results to confirm the correctness of the approach itself. The analysis starts from the most common relationships relating the molar enthalpy to temperature and proceeds further to the reaction mode and stoichiometry.

5.1

Ratio of the Initial Decomposition Temperature to the Molar Enthalpy

Theoretical Consideration The decomposition temperature is an important, if not the most important kinetic parameter used in studies of the decomposition processes. It defines the upper limit of reactant stability and the onset of a decomposition reaction. However, temperature is most commonly used only as an additional factor in determination of the Arrhenius parameters. (For instance, Galwey [1] used an average decomposition temperature in his estimations of A values basing on E parameters, known for various substances.) No quantitative definition of the concept of an initial decomposition temperature has been developed, based on a certain specified value of the decomposition rate J, or on parameters related to it (the rate constant k, or the equilibrium pressure of gaseous products PB ). The detailed interrelation between the decomposition temperature and the molar enthalpy, ∆r HT◦ /ν (or E parameter) has also not been considered. Meanwhile, in electrothermal AAS, the proportionality of the initial atomization temperature of an element to the E parameter has been revealed as far back as in the mid 1970s [2]. The expected form of this relationship is based on Eq. 4.11: ∆r HT◦ = T (∆r ST◦ + aR ln β − νR ln PB )

(5.1)

Assuming β ∼ = 1 for the simplicity of further considerations: 1 T = ◦ ◦ ∆r HT /ν ∆r ST /ν − R ln PB

(5.2)

This equation can be used to estimate the ratio of temperature to the molar enthalpy of the process, assuming that the PB value is defined properly and that the value of molar entropy, ∆r ST◦ /ν, is known. This

65

66

5 Decomposition Conditions and the Molar Enthalpy

relationship could be considered as a generalization of Trouton’s rule, relating the boiling temperature, Tb , and molar enthalpy of evaporation for liquids (see, e.g., [3]). For the boiling temperature at PB = 1 bar, the mean value ∆r ST◦ = 86 ± 20 J mol−1 K−1 [4], and the ratio Tb /∆r HT◦ is within the limits 9.4–15.2 K mol kJ−1 (with the mean value equal to 11.6 K mol kJ−1 ). For simple sublimation of solid substances at comparatively low PB magnitudes, deviations of Tsub /∆r HT◦ values from the mean should be lower than those for the boiling of liquids, due to the appearance of an additional positive term (−R ln PB ) in the denominator in Eq. 5.2. This conclusion is confirmed by the calculated values for 37 different substances (see Table 5.1). These substances include some metals and stable binary compounds, known, as it was shown experimentally, for their equilibrium sublimation (i.e., provided that αv = 1). The sublimation temperatures fall within the range from 180 K for ice to 3,020 K for tungsten. Given that PB = 10−7 bar (this value, as will be shown below, corresponds to the initial sublimation temperature), the mean value ∆r ST◦ = 144 ± 17 J mol−1 K−1 and the ratio Tsub /∆r HT◦ = 3.62 ± 0.22 K mol kJ−1 . The maximum deviation of the ratio Tsub /∆r HT◦ from the mean value is only 11% at the sublimation temperature, as compared to that of 25% obtained at the boiling temperature. Experimental Data for Decomposition Reactions If it is assumed that all decomposition reactions proceed in accordance with the equilibrium laws (but with the formation of primary products which may differ from equilibrium products), then this criterion holds true for other reactions as well. Tables 5.2 and 5.3 present data, which have been collected by L’vov (see [4] for details and references) from different publications. Table 5.2 presents the results relating to decomposition of 50 different substances to gaseous products, while Table 5.3 summarizes data for 50 other compounds for the process of their decomposition to gaseous and solid products. Despite the differences in methods, techniques, and measurement conditions, the initial decomposition temperatures, Tin , correspond, with some minor exceptions, to a partial pressure of the gaseous product of the order of 10−7 bar (within the limits of 10-fold deviation in both directions) [4]. The majority of the results presented in these tables have been obtained under isothermal conditions. The only exception are the results obtained using the methods of electrothermal AAS and quadrupole MS. In these latter experiments the mass of a specimen applied onto a graphite heater surface in a form of quasi-monolayer (by means of drying a drop of solution), amounted to several micrograms, so that it was possible to ignore the thermal inhomogeneity of the sample. All experiments were carried out under vacuum or in an inert atmosphere, i.e., in the absence of gaseous products (equimolar decomposition mode). Where there were multiple publications devoted to studies of the same substance, preference was given to the results obtained by more experienced

5.1 Ratio of the Initial Decomposition Temperature to the Molar Enthalpy Table 5.1

Tsub /∆HT◦ ratio for the sublimation of free metals and simple substancesa [5]

Reactant Ag B Be Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Mo Ni Pd Pt Rh Ru Si Ti W Zn 2I ↔ I2 2Te ↔ Te2 KCl KI LiF NaCl BaF2 BeF2 CaF2 HgBr2 HgCl2 HgI2 H2 O MgF2 SnCl2 SrF2 ThO2 ZrO2 4P(white) ↔ P4 Average ± s a

67

∆ST◦ (J mol−1 K−1 ) 121.9 144.9 123.5 114.5 136.1 138.5 124.0 131.0 143.9 139.6 118.2 141.4 148.5 147.3 143.1 133.2 150.2 115.1 151.0 154.8 139.4 137.0 145.2 140.7 165.2 160.5 176.3 131.9 148.7 144.8 144.2 167.3 164.2 167.1 173.0 168.5 115.2 144 ± 17

Tsub (K) 1,089 2,003 1,245 447 1,535 1,419 1,277 1,502 2,340 1,527 1,443 2,005 1,929 2,311 1,602 1,711 3,020 517 223 558 779 714 951 804 1,229 759 1,316 316 281 321 180 1,235 429 1,359 2,358 2,418 236

∆HT◦ (kJ mol−1 ) 279.4 558.6 320.7 111.2 414.7 386.6 330.8 398.0 650.2 417.7 364.0 554.3 544.9 650.0 443.8 457.3 858.3 128.7 63.5 161.2 213.0 193.5 265.4 220.8 367.6 223.6 408.3 84.1 79.4 89.5 50.0 372.0 127.8 409.2 723.9 731.4 58.9

Tsub corresponds to the vapour partial pressure of 10−7 bar

Tsub /∆HT◦ (K mol kJ−1 ) 3.90 3.59 3.88 4.02 3.70 3.67 3.86 3.77 3.60 3.66 3.96 3.62 3.54 3.56 3.61 3.74 3.52 4.02 3.51 3.46 3.66 3.69 3.58 3.64 3.34 3.39 3.22 3.76 3.54 3.59 3.60 3.32 3.36 3.32 3.26 3.31 4.01 3.62 ± 0.22

68

Table 5.2


Tin /E ratio for the decomposition of reactants to gaseous productsa

Reactant

Sample

Medium

Method

Tin (K) E (kJ mol−1 )

Asb

Crystal Crystal Sml Sml Sml Sml Sml Sml Sml Sml Powder Sml Sml Sml Sml Sml Sml Sml Crystal Powder Powder Pellet Crystal Crystal Crystal Crystal Pellet Crystal Crystal Powder Pellet Pellet Crystal Crystal Powder Powder Pellet Pellet Powder Pellet

Vacuum Vacuum Ar Ar Ar Ar Ar Ar Ar Ar Vacuum Ar Ar Ar Ar Ar Ar Ar Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum

I-G I-G NI-AAS NI-AAS NI-AAS NI-AAS NI-AAS NI-AAS NI-AAS NI-AAS I-G NI-AAS NI-AAS NI-AAS NI-AAS NI-AAS NI-AAS NI-AAS I-T I-MS I-MS I-G I-G I-G I-T I-T I-G I-T I-QMS I-R I-G I-T I-G I-G I-G I-G I-G I-G I-R I-G

550 650 2,100 2,200 2,200 1,100 2,000 800 1,900 1,500 650 1,300 1,400 1,800 1,700 1,100 2,100 2,200 1,400 1,213 1,773 1,239 882 957 998 952 1,590 1,166 1,020 1,873 1,610 1,000 513 495 1,987 2,236 2,773 2,973 2,673 2,773

Sbb Al2 O3 BaO BeO Bi2 O3 CaO CdO Cr2 O3 Ga2 O3 HgO In2 O3 Li2 O MgO MnO PbO SrO V2 O3 ZnO GeO2 SiO2 SnO2 CdS CdSe ZnS ZnSe AlN GaN InN UN Be3 N2 Mg3 N2 KN3 NaN3 TiN ZrN HfC TaC ThC2 ZrC

183 207 638 468 600 245 518 233 502 427 193 361 361 504 450 240 500 633 397 341 508 348 238 236 258 294 542 305 336 526 428 238 144 151 533 667 778 955 708 831

Tin /E (K mol kJ−1 ) 3.01 3.14 3.29 4.70 3.67 4.49 3.86 3.43 3.78 3.51 3.36 3.60 3.88 3.57 3.78 4.58 4.20 3.48 3.53 3.56 3.49 3.56 3.71 4.06 3.87 3.24 2.93 3.82 3.04 3.56 3.76 4.20 3.56 3.28 3.73 3.35 3.56 3.11 3.78 3.34 (continued)


69

(continued)

LaB6 SrB6 ZrB2 BaSO4 HgC2 O4 NH4 HCO3 NH4 ClO4 CH2 (COOH)2 Tetryl NH3 · NI3

Pellet Pellet Pellet Crystal Powder Pellet Pellet Liquid Liquid Powder

Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum N2 (reduced) Air Air Vacuum

I-MS I-M I-G I-T I-G I-G I-M I-M I-M I-G

1,993 1,773 2,173 1,422 373 293 653 407 484 253

561 410 640 384 110 80 162 136 161 79

3.55 4.32 3.40 3.70 3.39 3.66 4.03 2.99 3.01 3.20

a

Sml: sub-monolayer; I: isothermal; NI: non-isothermal; G: gravimetric; T: torsion; M: manometric; R: radioactivity; AAS: atomic absorption spectrometry; MS: mass spectrometry; QMS: quadrupole mass spectrometry b As and Sb sublimate in accordance with the reaction: 6M → M + M (Table 9.2) 4 2

groups (led by Searcy and Munir, Pavlyuchenko and Prodan, Fesenko and Bolgar, Topley, Jacobs, Galwey, Ingraham, Alcock and Okhotnikov). The tables contain results for different classes of compounds: from metalloids (As and Sb) and simple binary compounds (oxides, halogens, nitrides, carbides, and borides) to salts of some inorganic and organic acids (nitrates, sulfates, carbonates, permanganates, formates, acetates, and oxalates) and hydrated salts. The tables also include some explosives (azides, ammonium salts, tetryl, metal styphnates, and nitrogen iodide). The initial decomposition temperatures for the above substances fall within the range from 253 K for nitrogen iodide to 2,973 K for TaC. The magnitude of the ratio Tin /E(K mol kJ−1 ) for all reactants is very close to the expected (theoretical) value Tsub /∆r HT◦ = 3.62 ± 0.22 K mol kJ−1 . The mean value Tin /E is 3.61 ± 0.39 K mol kJ−1 for reactants in Table 5.2 and 3.62 ± 0.37 K mol kJ−1 for those in Table 5.3. No difference is observed in the mean values of Tin /E for substances that decompose to gaseous products and those that decompose to solid and gaseous products. The only difference between the experimental values of Tin /E and the theoretical (for equilibrium sublimation) value Tsub /∆r HT◦ is the somewhat higher (by a factor of 1.7) magnitude of the standard deviation from the mean value. This can be explained by random errors in the E parameter determination, by the simplifying assumption β ∼ = 1, introduced in the derivation of Eq. 5.2, and by a potential discrepancy between the initial decomposition temperature and the anticipated partial pressure of the gaseous product (10−7 bar). (Taking into account all the above-mentioned factors one could expect much higher deviations.)

70


Table 5.3 Tin /E ratio for the decomposition of reactants to gaseous and solid productsa Reactant

Sample

Medium

Method

Ag2 O Cu2 O FeO NiO Pb3 O4 AgN3 PbN6 TlN3 Ag2 CO3 CdCO3 ZnCO3 MgCO3 CaMg(CO3 )2 CaCO3 SrCO3 BaCO3 NaHCO3 AgNO3 Cd(NO3 )2 Pb(NO3 )2 Ca(NO3 )2 Al2 (SO4 )3 BeSO4 CdSO4 CoSO4 CuSO4 FeSO4 MgSO4 NiSO4 UO2 SO4 CsMnO4 KMnO4 NaMnO4 Cu(HCOO)2 Th(HCOO)4 UO2 (HCOO)2 Ni(CH3 COO)2 Ag2 C2 O4

Powder Powder Powder Powder Powder Pellet Powder Crystal Powder Powder Powder Powder Crystal Crystal Powder Powder Powder Sml Sml Sml Powder Pellet Powder Powder Powder Powder Powder Powder Pellet Powder Crystal Crystal Crystal Powder Powder Powder Powder Powder

Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Ar Vacuum N2 Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum N2 Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum N2 O2 N2 Air Air Air Air N2 He Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Ar Ar Vacuum Vacuum

I-M I-G I-G I-G I-G I-M I-M I-M I-G I-G I-G I-G I-T I-G I-G I-G I-G NI-QMS NI-QMS NI-QMS I-G I-G I-G I-G I-G I-G I-G I-G I-G I-G I-G I-G I-G I-G I-G I-G I-G I-G

Tin (K) 553 900 1,270 1,180 731 503 468 513 420 513 523 714 824 934 888 1,215 383 580 622 581 773 923 875 1,035 1,113 963 949 1,193 1,033 912 513 489 400 430 498 538 548 378

E (kJ mol−1 )

Tin /E (K mol kJ−1 )

151 205 331 305 188 151 152 149 96 151 159 192 195 220 290 283 109 167 183 145 229 268 217 289 315 262 253 312 257 245 141 165 128 146 150 169 150 113

3.66 4.39 3.84 3.87 3.89 3.33 3.08 3.44 4.38 3.40 3.29 3.72 4.23 4.25 3.06 4.29 3.51 3.47 3.40 4.01 3.38 3.44 4.03 3.58 3.53 3.68 3.75 3.82 4.02 3.72 3.64 2.96 3.13 2.95 3.32 3.18 3.65 3.35 (continued)


71

(continued)

CuC2 O4 MnC2 O4 NiC2 O4 PbC2 O4 Mg(OH)2 Kaolinite Li2 SO4 ·H2 O Ba-styphnate·H2 O Pb-styphnate·H2 O BaCl2 ·2H2 O MgC2 O4 ·2H2 O CuSO4 ·5H2 O

Powder Powder Powder Powder Crystal Powder Crystal Powder Powder Crystal Crystal Crystal

Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum N2 N2 Vacuum

I-M I-G I-G I-G I-G I-G I-QCM I-G I-G I-PP I-G I-QCM

521 608 503 582 550 818 300 542 468 313 425 260

136 180 159 151 126 225 87 153 138 87 111 74

3.83 3.38 3.16 3.85 4.37 3.64 3.45 3.54 3.39 3.60 3.83 3.51

a

Sml: sub-monolayer; I: isothermal; NI: non-isothermal; G: gravimetric; T: torsion; M: manometric; PP: periodic photomicrography; QMS: quadrupole mass spectrometry; QCM: quartz crystal microbalance

The statistical distribution of Tin /E values for all the 100 reactants is shown in Fig. 5.1 [4]. Each distribution point corresponds to a sum of Tin /E values falling within a 0.2-wide interval along the x-axis. The distribution is in good agreement with a Gaussian curve, which confirms the random character of the errors. Although the decomposition of the majority of reactants listed in Tables 5.2 and 5.3 (as distinct from those in Table 5.1) occurs with some deviation from the completely equilibrium decomposition regime, corresponding to the formation of equilibrium primary products, their decomposition kinetics appear identical. This is observed for all the compounds where the magnitude of the ratio Tin /E = 3.62 ± 0.38 K mol kJ−1 or, correspondingly, the magnitude of the molar enthalpy of reaction is ∆r ST◦ /ν = 142 ± 30 J mol−1 K−1 . This conclusion is very important, because it proves that decomposition reactions for all substances, regardless of the type of products formed (gaseous only or solid and gaseous), proceed according to the equilibrium laws. Another important conclusion is that it is possible to use the relationship Tin /E = 3.62 ± 0.38 K mol kJ−1 as an approximate estimate of E values from measured values of Tin (with a mean relative error of about 10%), and as a validation criterion in the analysis of experimental results. Clearly, this relationship is valid for the equimolar decomposition mode only, and is subject to the requirement that the initial decomposition temperature must correspond to the equilibrium pressure of the gaseous products within the limits of 10−8 − 10−6 bar.

72


25

Frequency of occurence

20

15

10

5

0

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Tin /E (K mol kJ -1) Fig. 5.1 The statistical distribution of Tin /E values for all 100 reactants in steps of equal increment (0.2). The curve corresponds to the Gaussian distribution. (Reproduced from [4], with permission.)

5.2

Thermal Desorption and Criteria for its Identification

Matrix Modification Technique Up to this point, consideration of the mechanisms and kinetics of sublimation and evaporation have been limited to crystalline substances (representing an individual phase). However, the thermodynamic approach used above is not restricted to these processes only. There are some other heterogeneous processes where it can be of use. Among these are, in particular, the processes of heterogeneous catalysis and of the interactions of solid substances with gases and metal vapours. The application of this approach to a mechanism of sample atomization in electrothermal AAS (ET AAS) will be considered further. The ET AAS technique (see Fig. 5.2) is based on fast evaporation of samples to be analysed in a miniature tube furnace (6–8 mm in diameter and 20– 30 mm in length) made of graphite [5]. A light beam from the source of a line spectrum (usually a hollow cathode lamp) passes through this tube and the value of the light absorption by free atoms of analyte is measured. A grating monochromator is used to separate the most sensitive resonance line from the atomic spectrum of the element emitted by the light source.

5.2 Thermal Desorption and Criteria for its Identification

73

Fig. 5.2 Simplified scheme of an atomic absorption spectrometer with electrothermal atomization of samples: (1) light source (hollow cathode lamp), (2) atomizer (graphite furnace), (3) grating monochromator, (4) photo detector, (5) amplifier; and (6) indicator

Samples in nano- or microgram amounts are introduced into the furnace in a form of solutions. These aliquots (10–30 µL) are dried and, before the atomization, are subjected to a preliminary pyrolysis, which is aimed to remove (evaporate) more volatile matrix components from the sample. To achieve more efficient separation, 1–10 µg of one of the platinum group metals (most often, palladium) is added to the sample in the form of a nitrate solution. This additive serves as a chemical matrix modifier preventing evaporation of the analyte during the pyrolysis stage. An interpretation of the mechanism of analyte retention on the furnace surface has been one of the most controversial problems in ET AAS for years. Since the first studies in this field in the 1970s, two different mechanisms have been suggested. According to the first one, the adsorption/desorption mechanism, it is supposed that the analyte is distributed on the furnace surface in the form of a monolayer of free atoms or molecules, retained on the surface by means of physical or chemical adsorption forces. According to the second one, the condensation/evaporation mechanism, the sample is distributed in a form of solid microparticles retaining all the thermochemical characteristics of the original (bulk) substance. Numerous studies have been performed in this field during the last few decades. A non-isothermal method, traditionally used in thermal analysis was applied to measure the rate constants, which were then used in an Arrhenius plot to determine the E parameter. The magnitude of E has been compared with the enthalpies (∆r HT◦ ) of various possible reactions and this was used to elucidate the actual atomization mechanism. In spite of this, the mechanism of matrix modification, as well as some other evaporation/atomization problems, still remains unrevealed. Theoretical Consideration Several years ago L’vov [6, 7] attempted to solve this problem in the same way as had been done in the study of decomposition kinetics. That approach was based on the relationship equivalent to Eq. 5.2: 1 Tapp ∼ (5.3) = ◦ E ∆r ST − R ln Papp This equation relates the initial temperature, Tapp , of the absorption signal appearance, the parameter E and the atomic vapour pressure, Papp , in

74


the furnace corresponding to this signal. As was shown above, assuming that Papp = 10−7 bar and ∆v ST◦ = 144 ± 17 J mol−1 K−1 , the ratio Tapp /E for the evaporation process is 3.62 ± 0.22 K mol kJ−1 . For desorption of metal atoms located on the surface in the form of a two-dimensional gas, the molar enthalpy change, ∆d ST◦ , should be much lower, because it corresponds to the atom transition from the two-dimensional into a three-dimensional gaseous state. These states differ only in statistical sums (partition functions) for translational motion of atoms, and the difference in entropy may be expressed by the following equation based on the principles of statistical mechanics [8]: ∆d ST◦ = R(2.5 ln T + 1.5 ln M − 1.16487)/3

(5.4)

The mean value of ∆d ST◦ for desorption of metal atoms with the average molar mass M = 0.05 kg mol−1 at the temperature T = 1,500 K, is 35 J mol−1 K−1 . Therefore the mean value of the ratio Tapp /E for metal atom desorption of 5.9 K mol kJ−1 is 1.6 times higher than that for metal evaporation. Furthermore, the difference in the magnitudes of ∆d ST◦ manifests itself in the difference in pre-exponential factors in the Arrhenius equation for these processes. According to theory (see Sect. 3.7) the ratio of the A parameters is: Av /Ad = exp[(∆v ST◦ − ∆d ST◦ )/R] ∼ = 3 × 105

(5.5)

Instead of a mean value Av ∼ = 3 × 1011 s−1 (for vaporization) the Ad magnitude (for desorption) should be of the order of 106 s−1 . Application of these two criteria (the Tapp /E ratio and the absolute A value) to the analysis of the experimental data allows a decision to be made between the two feasible mechanisms and hence to find out the actual mechanism of the entry of atoms into the gas phase. Experimental Data This method was used to identify the mechanism of analyte retention by a Pd modifier [6]. The experimentally obtained magnitudes of the ratio Tapp /E for several analytes (in the presence of Pd modifier) were compared with the theoretical values (see Table 5.4). The magnitudes of Tapp /E (averaged for all the metals) appeared to be in perfect agreement with the desorption theory: 5.8 ± 0.5 (experiment) and 5.8 ± 0.1 K mol kJ−1 (theory). The conclusion was that atoms escape from the surface of solid palladium modifier (the E parameter was measured at temperatures lower than the melting point for Pd) as a result of desorption of single atoms and, thereafter, the mechanism of their retention on palladium on the stage during pyrolysis reduces to dissociative chemisorption. The analyte atoms are adsorbed on the modifier surface in the course of low-temperature decomposition of nitrates or in the process of sample introduction into the furnace in the form of hydrides (see Table 5.4). In subsequent work by L’vov [7], the results of similar studies for Se, Bi, Sn, and Cr retention on other metals of the platinum group (Pt, Rh, and Ru) as matrix modifiers were analysed. The mean value of the Tapp /E ratio for

5.3 Impact of the Decomposition Mode and Reaction Stoichiometry

75

Table 5.4 Experimental and theoretical values of Tapp /E for the analytes released from solid palladium [6, 7] Analyte Sample Ag As Au Bi Cd Cu Se Tl

In HNO3 AsH3 In HNO3 BiH3 In HNO3 In HNO3 SeH2 In HNO3

Tapp (K) E (kJ mol−1 ) ∆ST◦ (J mol−1 K−1 ) Tapp /E (K mol kJ−1 ) Expt Theory 1,778 1,693 1,508 1,380 1,293 1,250 1,465 1,709

338 ± 6 303 ± 12 274 ± 10 251 ± 20 218 ± 3 192 247 ± 12 288 ± 3

39.4 37.5 40.7 40.4 37.8 34.7 36.7 41.7

5.3 5.6 5.5 5.5 6.3 6.5 5.9 5.9

5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.9 5.7

all the 11 analyte/modifier combinations (5.9 ± 0.9 K mol kJ−1 ) was also in a good agreement with the desorption mechanism. A relatively high standard deviation was due to errors in determination of both kinetic parameters and to the deviation of the Papp magnitude from its mean value (10−7 bar) caused by differences in sensitivity of AAS measurements for Se, Bi, Sn, and Cr. Based on these and previous results, a conclusion was made [7] that the mechanism of analyte retention on all metals of the platinum group (at temperatures lower than melting points for these modifiers) amounts to dissociative chemisorption.

5.3

Impact of the Decomposition Mode and Reaction Stoichiometry on the Molar Enthalpy

Theoretical Conclusions An analysis of the set of Eqs. 3.23–3.30, characterizing the absolute decomposition rates JB for compounds, which decompose both to gaseous products only and to final solid and gaseous products, reveals, in different experimental conditions (under vacuum and in the presence of a foreign inert gas), some common features. These may be reduced to the following statements. •

The value of the molar enthalpy, ∆r HT◦ /a, for the isobaric decomposition mode does not depend on partial pressure of the excess of gaseous product in the system, PBext , i.e., for any magnitude of PBext : E i = ∆HT◦ /a = const

•

(5.6)

The decomposition rate in the isobaric mode, JBi , other factors being equal, is inversely related to the magnitude (PBext )b/a , i.e., −b/a JBi ∝ PBext

(5.7)

76 •


The ratio of the E parameters or molar enthalpies for the isobaric and equimolar decomposition modes satisfies the condition:

a+b ν Ei (5.8) = = e E a a These theoretical conclusions will be compared below with experimental results using two different classes of compounds, Group IIA metal carbonates and crystalline hydrates, as examples.

5.4

Decomposition of Carbonates in the Presence of CO2

Introduction to the Problem Specific features of the decomposition of carbonates of alkaline-earth metals in the presence of CO2 have been studied over the last 70 years in many works. However, no agreement in quantitative and even qualitative interpretation of these features has been achieved [9]. As an illustration, Table 5.5 presents the reported values of the E parameter for decomposition of calcite in the presence of CO2 . As is evident from these data, according to the majority of the studies [10–14], the increase of the CO2 pressure was accompanied by an increase of the E parameter, and in some cases, its magnitude reached 2,000–4,000 kJ mol−1 . By contrast, in other studies [15–17] the E parameter remained approximately constant, although more than a twofold difference in its absolute value was observed. Such a scatter in results may be due to experimental errors, and primarily to the use of the Arrhenius plot method in conditions far from optimal when the ratio Tmax /∆T achieves too high values (see Sect. 4.6). For example, the Tmax /∆T ratio in work by Zawadski and Bretsznajder [10] was 30, 30, and 100 at CO2 pressures of 0.026, 0.039, and 0.059 bar, respectively. Even if the rate constants k2 and k1 were measured to within an error of 2–3% only, the uncertainty in the determination of the E parameter could reach 200–300%. Table 5.5 Investigations of the effect of CO2 pressure on the E parameter for CaCO3 decomposition [9]. (From the data reported in different works.) Year Variation of ext (bar) PCO2 1935 1958 1960 1976 1977

0.0013–0.059 0–0.53 0.032–0.26 1.0 0 and 0.05 0–1.0 1985 0.02–0.06 1995 0.013–0.20 0.20 2002 4 × 10−6 − 8 × 10−5 a Non-isotherm:

Point Variation of Measurement Calculation Number E (kJ mol−1 ) Techniquea Method 6 5 4 1 2 3 3 4 1 5

186–1,536 160–360 708–1,580 565–3,830b 201 and 950 213–2,142 310–460 191 ± 5 187 493 ± 5

non-isothermal b At different heating rates and sample sizes

Isothermal Isothermal Non-isotherm Non-isotherm Isothermal Non-isotherm Isothermal Non-isotherm Isothermal Isothermal

Arrhenius Arrhenius Arrhenius Arrhenius Arrhenius

plot plot plot plot plot

Ref. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

Arrhenius plot [15] Arrhenius plot [16] Third-law

[17]

5.4 Decomposition of Carbonates in the Presence of CO2

77

Another source of the scatter could be the shortcomings of non-isothermal TA methods [12–14]. Use of the Third-law Method Taking into account the unreliability of these measurements, L’vov and Ugolkov [9] studied the influence of excess CO2 pressure on the E parameter using the third-law method. In addition to their own measurements of the decomposition rate for CaCO3 and SrCO3 in argon, with the addition of 0.1 bar CO2 , and for BaCO3 , with the addition of 0.001 bar CO2 , they used results reported in the literature. Tables 5.6 and 5.7 present the initial data and calculation results for CaCO3 and SrCO3 . As can be seen from Table 5.6, the partial CO2 pressure varied in different studies within the range of five orders of magnitude, from 3.6 × 10−6 to 0.6 bar. However, the E parameter remained practically the same. The mean value (obtained from 14 independent measurements) is 495±6 kJ mol−1 . Only two results have been excluded from these calculations. One of them (468.3 kJ mol−1 ) is underestimated, probably due to a catalytic effect of water vapours in the air atmosphere. The other, “overestimated” result (515.4 kJ mol−1 at 1,073 K), seems likely to be a consequence of an expected rise of the enthalpy with temperature due to the condensation effect (see Sect. 8.2). Table 5.6 Values of the E parameter for CaCO3 decomposition in the presence of CO2 calculated by the third-law method Medium

N2 (dry) N2 (dry) N2 (dry) Air Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum He (8 mbar) He (8 mbar) He (8 mbar) He (8 mbar) He (8 mbar) Ar Ar Ar Average

ext PCO 2 (bar)

T (K)

Peqp (bar)

∆r ST◦ (J mol−1 K−1 )

2.0E−1 6.0E−1 5.4E−1 2.4E−1 1.0E−4 1.0E−3 1.0E−3 1.0E−3 3.6E−6 1.5E−5 4.0E−5 5.8E−5 7.8E−5 1.0E−1 1.0E−1 1.0E−1

1,123 1,173 1,223 1,123 898 983 1,006 1,073 857 897 935 954 974 1,100.3 1,071.0 1,070.9 1,020 ± 110


307.2 305.8 304.2 307.2 314.6 311.9 311.3 308.9 316.1 314.6 313.4 312.8 312.2 308.0 308.9 308.9

a Underestimated

E (kJ mol−1 )

Ref.

496.0 498.7 502.4 468.3a 493.8 496.6 505.1 515.4b 485.7 489.8 494.0 496.5 498.4 487.3 492.5 489.3 495 ± 6c

[18] [18] [18] [19] [20] [20] [20] [20] [21] [21] [21] [21] [21] [9] [9] [9]

because of the possible catalytic effect of H2 O impurity in air because of the strong self-cooling effect in vacuum c The E values in “a” and “b” cases are excluded from calculation b Overestimated

78


Table 5.7 Values of the E parameter for SrCO3 decomposition in the presence of CO2 calculated from the literature data [9, 22] by the third-law method Medium Vacuum Vacuum Vacuum Argon Argon Average

ext PCO 2 (bar)

T (K)

3.9E−5 1,003 2.2E−4 1,053 1.3E−3 1,133 1.0E−1 1,131 1.0E−1 1,151

J (kg m−2 s−1 )

Peqp (bar)

∆r ST◦ (J mol−1 K−1 )

5.92E−7 4.51E−7 4.08E−6 4.40E−7 2.30E−7

6.38E−9 4.98E−9 4.67E−8 5.00E−9 2.70E−9

318.9 317.0 314.5 314.6 313.9

E Ref. (kJ mol−1 ) 561.9 574.9 577.9 556.5 571.6 569 ± 9

[22] [22] [22] [9] [9]

ext For SrCO3 (Table 5.7) the difference in PCO magnitudes was about four 2 orders of magnitude. The rate constants k served as initial data in the paper [22]. They were recalculated as magnitudes of J using Eq. 3.32 and with regard to magnitudes r0 = 1.2 × 10−6 m (according to estimates given in [22]) and ρ = 3, 700 kg m−3 . The mean value (obtained from five independent measurements) was 569 ± 9 kJ mol−1 . Thus, the molar enthalpy, characterizing the decomposition of carbonates in the presence of excess CO2 remains unchanged with variations of the CO2 content within the range of five orders of magnitude for CaCO3 and four orders of magnitude for SrCO3 . This supports the first of the three statements (consequences), resulting from the CDV mechanism and the corresponding kinetic equations. The final values of the molar enthalpy (parameter E) for decomposition of CaCO3 , SrCO3 , and BaCO3 in the equimolar and isobaric modes are summarized in Table 5.8. The mean value of the ratio E i /E e is 1.98 ± 0.03, which coincides with the theoretically expected magnitude of this ratio (the third statement listed above).

Hyperbolic Dependence of the Decomposition rate on the External CO2 Pressure The results presented in studies [16, 18, 19] confirm the second consequence, which for calcite decomposition in the presence of CO2 preext . Data taken from dicts a hyperbolic dependence between the rate and PCO 2 the paper by Hyatt et al. [18] are presented in Fig. 5.3. If we exclude from consideration the rates of CaCO3 decomposition at 900 ◦ C in the absence of CO2 (PCO2 = 0 atm), which are clearly underestimated owing to the selfcooling of the sample caused by the low thermal conductivity of gas and by the Table 5.8 Experimental values of the E parameter for the decomposition of carbonates in the isobaric [9] and equimolar [17, 23] modes Carbonate CaCO3 SrCO3 BaCO3 Average

T (K) i-mode e-mode 1,020 1,090 1,249

820 908 1,077

E (kJ mol−1 ) i-mode e-mode

E i /E e

Ref.

495 ± 6 569 ± 9 605 ± 1

1.95 1.99 2.00 1.98 ± 0.03

[17] [23] [23]

254 ± 6 285.5 ± 1.3 302.1 ± 1.5

5.5 Dehydration of Crystalline Hydratesin the Presence of H2 O

79

7

6

J (mg min-1 cm-2)

5

4 950oC 3

2

900oC

1

0 0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

PCO2 (atm) ext . Curves Fig. 5.3 A hyperbolic dependence of the CaCO3 decomposition rate on PCO 2 correspond to the theory. (Reproduced from [18], with permission.)

high decomposition rate (∼1 g m−2 s−1 ), then the experimental and theoretical results are in very good agreement. Thus, the experiments on decomposition of carbonates of alkaline-earth metals in an excess of CO2 are in excellent agreement with the CDV mechanism and its corresponding kinetic model. One thus needs to be critical of works reporting a continuous rise of the E parameter with excess CO2 pressure, in particular, of the results of study [10], a source of the long-lasting misconception in solid-state kinetics, “Zawadski and Bretsznajder rule”.

5.5

Dehydration of Crystalline Hydrates in the Presence of H2 O

Selection of Primary Data The thermal dehydrations of crystalline hydrates belong to the vast group of reactions that have been intensively studied and presented in the literature. The long-term kinetics research performed on these reactions has defined, essentially, the main achievements and problems in the field of solid-state reactions. That is why the study of the dependence of the E parameter on the excess pressure of H2 O vapour during the process

80


of dehydration of crystalline hydrates is of obvious interest. Recent work by L’vov [24] has been devoted to this problem. The following criteria (with some minor exceptions) have been used in the selection of the primary data, necessary for further analysis: •

• • • • •

The E parameters for both the equimolar and isobaric modes should have been measured and described by the same research group and, preferably, in the same paper. Measurements had been performed using isothermal thermogravimetry. The determination of E e values had been carried out in a high vacuum (with continuous pumping). The same kinetic model had been used for calculations of the rate constants for different modes. Parameters E had been calculated using the Arrhenius plot method. Where E i parameters had been determined at different pressures PH2 O , the result corresponding to the highest PH2 O magnitude was chosen (beyond PH2O magnitudes that are typical for the Topley–Smith effect).

As a result of a thorough analysis of the available literature (monographs, collected papers, conference proceedings, and periodicals) published over the last 45 years, L’vov [24] selected 22 different reactions (see Table 5.9), the kinetics of which had been studied in two different modes, under abovementioned conditions. The list of reactants includes: 3 layer silicates (clays), 3 hydroxides, 15 hydrates, and 1 anhydrous carbonate (which was included in the table to demonstrate an absence of the effect for anhydrous compounds). The reactants are listed in order of increasing ν/a magnitudes. Analysing the references [25–50] it can be seen that 13 reactants from the 22 were studied during the period 1970–1987 under the leadership of Pavlyuchenko and Prodan (the Institute of General and Inorganic Chemistry at Minsk). In some cases, the above-mentioned requirements applied to selection of results have not been fulfilled. Magnitudes of E i and E e for talc, muscovite, and Li2 SO4·H2 O have been obtained by different researchers. For a number of reactants (Zn(OH)2 , LiCl · H2 O, Er(HCOO)3 · 2H2 O, NiNa3 P3 O10 · 12H2 O, and ZnNa3 P3 O10 · 12H2 O) the E i and E e parameters were calculated or recalculated by L’vov [24] from the initial data taken from the publications. This was necessary either because of a lack of calculations in the original papers [41, 49], or by obvious discrepancies between the initial data and the calculation results [33, 35, 50]. The reliability of E i /E e magnitudes for this group of reactants is apparently lower than for the other reactants, although it is doubtful that the discrepancy with actual values would exceed 10–20%. Analysis The following conclusions can be drawn from the analysis of the data presented in Table 5.9. •

There is a good correlation between the experimentally obtained magnitudes of E i /E e and the theoretical values of ν/a. The magnitude of the

351–403 1,220–1,295 1,051–1,101 663–748 543–643 343–393 348–394 382–465 353–373 300–382 318–333 313–373 377–417 387–407 262–333 303–375 298–453 303–370 260–308 270–430 283–333 273–328

Na2 CO3 ·3NaHCO3 3MgO·4SiO2 ·H2 O K2 O·3Al2 O3 ·6SiO2 ·2H2 O Al2 O·2SiO2 ·2H2 O Mg(OH)2 Cd(OH)2 Zn(OH)2 CaC2 O4 ·H2 O LiCl·H2 O Li2 SO4 ·H2 O BaCl2 ·H2 O Ca(H2 PO4 )2 ·H2 O Er(HCOO)3 ·2H2 O Y(HCOO)3 ·2H2 O (NH4 )5 P3 O10 ·2H2 O MnHPO4 ·3H2 O Y2 (CO3 )3 ·4H2 O Na5 P3 O10 ·6H2 O Na3 P3 O9 ·6H2 O La2 (CO3 )3 ·8H2 O NiNa3 P3 O10 ·12H2 O ZnNa3 P3 O10 ·12H2 O 4 7 10 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

a 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 6 6 8 12 12

b 0 0.14 0.2 0.67 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 6 6 8 12 12

1 1.14 1.2 1.67 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 5 7 7 9 13 13

b/a ν/a 105 423 377 351 238 272 209a 281 177b 160 151 159 187c 200 100 250 154 236 264 515 431d 461e

102 366 341 213 121 116 95 147 98b 86 80 67 87c 82 46 57 35 59 41 65 40 48e

E (kJ mol−1 ) i-mode e-mode 1.03 1.15 1.11 1.65 1.97 2.34 2.20 1.91 1.81 1.86 1.89 2.37 2.15 2.44 2.17 4.39 4.40 4.00 6.44 7.92 10.78 9.60

Ei /Ee 3.0 0.6 −7.5 −1.0 −1.5 17.0 10.0 −4.5 −9.5 −7.0 −5.5 18.5 −28.3 −18.7 −27.7 9.8 −12.0 −42.9 −8.0 −12.0 −17.1 −26.1

∆ (%) 20 Zero-grade Ar Air static 6 5 7 18 Air dynamic 20 Air static 20 10 11 7 1 24 12 6 12 13 18 20

PH2 O (mbar) [25] [26] [28] [29] [30] [31] [33] [34] [35] [36] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]

i-mode

[25] [27] [27] [29] [30] [32] [33] [34] [35] [37, 38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [50] [50]

Refs. e-mode

b From

a From

the data in Fig. 22 [33] at 90◦ C, 95◦ C, and 100◦ C the data in Table 1 [35] at 80◦ C and 85◦ C for the i-mode and at 95◦ C and 100◦ C for the e-mode c From the data in Fig. 3 [41] at 114◦ C, 124◦ C, 134◦ C, and 144◦ C for the i-mode and from Table 2 at 104◦ C, 114◦ C, 124◦ C, and 144◦ C for the e-mode d From the data in Fig. 3 [49] at 60◦ C, 62◦ C, and 65◦ C e From the data in Fig. 2 [50] at 0◦ C and 15◦ C for the e-mode and at 47◦ C and 50◦ C for the i-mode

∆T (K)

The kinetic parameters of dehydration reactions in different modes

Reactant

Table 5.9

5.5 Dehydration of Crystalline Hydrates in the Presence of H2 O 81

82

5 Decomposition Conditions and the Molar Enthalpy 15

y = 0.7786x + 0.4031 r2 = 0.9783

12

Ei / Ee

9

6

3

0

0

3

6

9

12

15

ν /a Fig. 5.4 Correlation between the experimental ratios of the Arrhenius parameters E i /E e and the theoretical ratios of the stoichiometric coefficients ν/a for all the reactants (see Table 5.9) except for Na5 P3 O10 · 6H2 O

•

•

relative standard deviation, sr , for all the 22 reactants amounts to 17% only, although for two of them it reaches 28%, and for one, 43%. The similar data (excluding one result for Na5 P3 O10 · 6H2 O which differs from others most of all), presented in Fig. 5.4 in a graphic form, testify that the correlation coefficient is close to 0.99. However, the slope of the correlation curve is only 0.78. This can be partially explained by underestimation of experimental results for reactants with the ν/a magnitude equal to 13. With the additional exclusion of these points (Fig. 5.5), the slope would increase to 0.87. However, a systematic underestimation of the experimental results on the whole seems obvious. For 16 reactants the results turned out to be lower than expected, and only for 4 reactants, substantially higher. One of the reasons may be the differences in composition of the solid product for different modes. In the presence of H2 O the dehydration of some reactants proceeds via the formation of mono- or dihydrates, whereas in a vacuum anhydrous salts are formed. This was shown, in particular, for ZnNa3 P3 O10 · 12H2 O [50] and NiNa3 P3 O10 · 12H2 O [49]. The dehydration enthalpy should thus decrease compared to the enthalpy for formation of an anhydrous product. To estimate the probability of such a correlation being accidental, it is necessary to calculate the number of statistically independent sectors in a

5.5 Dehydration of Crystalline Hydrates in the Presence of H2 O

83

10

y = 0.8663x + 0.1846 r2 = 0.967 8

Ei / Ee

6

4

2

0 0

2

4

6

8

10

ν /a Fig. 5.5 Correlation between the experimental ratios of the Arrhenius parameters E i /E e and the theoretical ratios of the stoichiometric coefficients ν/a for all the reactants (see Table 5.9) except for Na5 P3 O10 · 6H2 O and two reactants with ν/a = 13

•

•

13-fold variation interval ν/a, with the width ν/a ± 2s for each of sectors and s = 0.17ν/a (2s-criterion for determination of sector independence corresponds to a confidence interval of 95%). Taking into account that the relative rise of width of sectors equals to 1.68, their quantity should be equal to 5(1.685 ∼ = 13). The probability of random correlation between E i /E e and ν/a is 0.2 for one reactant and 0.222 ∼ = 4 × 10−16 for 22 reactants. Thus, on the whole, this correlation is in no way random in nature. The mean value of the E parameter at low dehydration temperatures (≤ 300 K), applicable to eight of the reactants, was 49 ± 10 kJ mol−1 . This magnitude exceeds the enthalpy of evaporation of free water at ◦ = 44.0 kJ mol−1 ). However, for three reactants the E para298 K(∆H298 meter turned out to be lower than 44 kJ mol−1 . This indicates an obvious measurement error, associated, most likely, with the self-cooling effect. If it is assumed that this systematic error affects both parameters, E e and E i , equally then their ratio is close to the true value. The mechanism of dehydration of layer silicates [51] is believed to differ from the mechanism of dehydration of crystalline hydrates and this has been used to explain the observed differences in parameters E e (in vacuum) and in decomposition temperatures. This view is reflected, in particular, in the fact that the special term “dehydroxylation” is used in the literature to describe clay dehydration. However, this belief is not justified. As can be

84


seen from Table 5.9, the increase of molar enthalpy (parameter E e ) for clays is accompanied by an abrupt rise of the coefficient a. This implies that, for instance, for talc to remove one mole of water it is necessary, according to the CDV mechanism, to vaporize, as ballast, seven extra moles of other lowvolatility components (3MgO and 4SiO2 ). As a result, both the temperature and molar enthalpy rise considerably (by a factor of 4–8) as compared to these parameters for hydroxides and, especially, for hydrates (for a = 1). Thus, the dehydration of crystalline hydrates in the presence of water, in the same way as the decomposition of carbonates in an excess of CO2 , occurs in agreement with predictions from the CDV mechanism and its corresponding kinetic model.

References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

26. 27. 28.

Galwey AK (1994) Thermochim Acta 242:259–264 Sturgeon RE, Chakrabarti CL, Langford CH (1976) Anal Chem 481:792–1807 Pauling L (1970) General chemistry. Freeman, San-Francisco L’vov BV (2002) Thermochim Acta 389:199–211 Welz B, Sperling M (1999) Atomic absorption spectrometry. Wiley, Weinheim L’vov BV (2000) Spectrochim Acta B 55:1659–1668 L’vov BV (2000) Spectrochim Acta B 55:1913–1919 Glushko VP (1978–1982) (ed) Thermodynamic properties of individual substances, Handbook in 4 volumes. Nauka, Moscow (in Russian) L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2004) Thermochim Acta 410:47–55 Zawadzki J, Bretsznajder S (1935) Z Elektrochem 41:215–223 Tagawa H, Sudo F (1958) J Chem Soc Ind Chem Sect 61:946–948 Mauras H (1960) Bull Soc Chim France 260–267 Gallagher PK, Johnson DW (1976) Thermochim Acta 14:255–261 Caldwell KM, Gallagher PK, Johnson DW (1977) Thermochim Acta 18:15–19 Maciejewski M, Baldyga J (1985) Thermochim Acta 92:105–108 Criado JM, Gonzalez M, Malek J, Ortega A (1995) Thermochim Acta 254:121–127 L’vov BV, Polzik LK, Ugolkov VL (2002) Thermochim Acta 390:5–19 Hyatt EP, Cutler IB, Wadsworth ME (1958) J Am Ceram Soc 41:70–74 Ingraham TR, Marier P (1963) Can J Chem Eng 41:170–173 Darroudi T, Searcy AW (1981) J Phys Chem 85:3971–3974 L’vov BV (2001) Thermochim Acta 373:97–124 Zemtsova ZN, Pavlyuchenko MM, Prodan EA (1971) Vesti AN BSSR Ser Khim No 5:21–26 (in Russian) L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2004) Thermochim Acta 409:13–18 L’vov BV (2006) J Therm Anal Cal 84:581–587 Pavlyuchenko MM, Prodan EA, Kramarenko FG, et al. (1979) Thermal decomposition of inorganic compounds in gaseous atmosphere. In: Prodan EA (ed) Heterogeneous chemical reactions. Nauka Tekhnika, Minsk (in Russian), pp 37–54 Ward JR (1975) Thermochim Acta 13:7–14 L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2005) J Therm Anal Cal 82:15–22 Holt B, Cutler IB, Wadsworth ME (1964) Kinetics of the thermal dehydration of hydrous silicates. In: Bradeley WF (ed) Proceedings of 12th National Conference on Clay and Clay Minerals, Atlanta, Georgia. Pergamon, Oxford, pp 55–67


References

85

29. Brindley GW, Sharp JH, Patterson JH, Nakahira BN (1967) Am Mineral 52:201–211 30. Zhabrova GM, Gordeeva VA (1960) Kinet Katal (Paper Collection). Akad Nauk SSSR, Moscow (in Russian) 31. Novoselova MYu, Prodan EA, Pavlyuchenko MM, Slyshkina SA (1972) Vesti AN BSSR Ser Khim No 1:10–14 (in Russian) 32. Pavlyuchenko MM, Novoselova MYu, Prodan EA (1969) Vesti AN BSSR Ser Khim No 1:5–10 (in Russian) 33. Pavlyuchenko MM, Prodan EA, Kramarenko FG, et al. (1979) Effect of gaseous phase on the decomposition kinetics of some carbonates and hydroxides. In: Prodan EA (ed) Heterogeneous chemical reactions. Nauka Tekhnika, Minsk (in Russian), pp 54–57 34. Dollimore D, Evans TA, Lee YF, Wilburn FW (1992) Thermochim Acta 198:249–257 35. Pavlyuchenko MM, Borisenko EM, Torgonskaya TI (1971) Dokl AN BSSR 15:322–324 (in Russian) 36. L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2005) Russian J Appl Chem 78:379–385 37. Okhotnikov VB, Yakobson BI, Lyakhov NZ (1983) React Kinet Catal Lett 23:125–130 38. Kirdyashkina NA, Okhotnikov VB (1988) React Kinet Catal Lett 36:417–422 39. Lumpkin JA, Perlmutter DD (1995) Thermochim Acta 249:335–349 40. Pavlyuchenko MM, Borisenko EM (1970) Dehydration kinetics of calcium phosphate monohydrate. In: Pavlyuchenko MM, Prodan EA (eds) Heterogeneous chemical reactions. Nauka Tekhnika, Minsk, (in Russian), pp 181–189 41. Masuda Y, Hirata K, Ito Y (1992) Thermochim Acta 203:289–296 42. Masuda Y, Ito Y (1992) J Therm Anal 38:1793–1799 43. Prodan EA, Korzhuev VN, Petrovskaya LI (1981) Vesti AN BSSR Ser Khim No 1:71–75 (in Russian) 44. Samuskevich VV, Prodan EA, Kluy IV (1984) Vesti AN BSSR Ser Khim No 1:47–51 (in Russian) 45. Pavlyuchenko MM, Kokhanovsky VV, Prodan EA (1970) Dehydration kinetics of crystalline hydrate of yttrium carbonate. In: Pavlyuchenko MM, Prodan EA (eds) Heterogeneous chemical reactions. Nauka Tekhnika, Minsk (in Russian), pp 168–180 46. Pavlyuchenko MM, Prodan EA, Lesnikovich LA (1972) Dokl AN BSSR 16:719–722 (in Russian) 47. Prodan EA, Pytlev SI (1985) Vesti AN BSSR Ser Khim No 6:47–52 (in Russian) 48. Pavlyuchenko MM, Samuskevich VV, Prodan EA (1970) Vesti AN BSSR Ser Khim No 6:11–15 (in Russian) 49. Pavlyuchenko MM, Pisyak YaS, Zonov YuG, Prodan EA (1970) Vesti AN BSSR Ser Khim No 1:29–37 (in Russian) 50. Prodan EA, Zonov YuG, Pavlyuchenko MM (1971) Vesti AN BSSR Ser Khim No 2:21–25 (in Russian) 51. Brown ME, Dollimore D, Galwey AK (1980) Reactions in the solid state. Elsevier, London

Chapter 6

The Self-cooling Effect The role of self-cooling in endothermic decompositions has been discussed in many works. However, only in a few studies [1–3] performed during the period 1930–1950 has this effect been taken into account in measurements of dehydration rates and of the corresponding Arrhenius parameters (E and A). Most of the other researchers assume (often implicitly) that the magnitude of self-cooling is insignificant and may be neglected. Much greater attention has been given to the problem of self-heating during the processes of pyrolysis, carbon gasification, and decomposition of high-energy materials. L’vov and his colleagues published in 1998 results of their research on the modelling of the temperature distribution in heterogeneous systems and on estimations of the influence of self-cooling on the decomposition parameters for Mg(OH)2 [4] and Li2 SO4 · H2 O [5]. The difference in temperatures of a furnace and a sample (even in a single crystal form) may reach, in a high vacuum, a few tens of degrees, and, consequently, may be a source of severe errors in the determination of kinetic parameters. The self-cooling effect should be much greater for powder samples.

6.1

The Model for Temperature Calculation

L’vov et al. [4, 5] used the following procedure to model the temperature distribution in a powder sample in the presence of residual air (or foreign gas) and water vapour. The specimen was considered to be composed of horizontal layers of material with the layer thickness equal to a powder grain diameter, so that the modelling could be reduced to a reconstruction of a vertical temperature distribution between the sample layers. (A single crystal sample corresponds to a one-layer specimen.) The furnace temperature above and below the specimen was assumed to be the same so the analysis was limited to consideration of half of this multilayer sample, from a central, zeroth or first layer, up to the nth, outer layer. If the thermal conductivity at point contacts between grains is neglected and decomposition conditions are assumed to be stationary, a heat balance equation for any ith layer of the sample can be formulated, which connects the amounts of heat expended for decomposition, radiation, and heat conduction of water vapours and residual air, with the heat accumulated from radiation and heat transfer from the neighbouring (i − 1)th and (i + 1)th layers: 1/2 E Pw2 Pw −1/2 + B exp + 2CTi4 − 2ATi 4 Ti 2 −1/2

+Dw Ti

−1/2

Pw (Ti − Ti−1 ) + Da Ti

Pa (Ti − Ti−1 ) 87

88

6 The Self-cooling Effect −1/2

4 4 = C(Ti−1 + Ti+1 ) + Dw Ti −1/2 Pa (Ti+1 +Da Ti

Pw (Ti+1 − Ti )

− Ti )

(6.1)

Here γ∆r HT◦ (2πMp R)1/2 ∆ST◦ ≡ exp R ≡ εσ γCvw ≡ (2πMw R)1/2 γCva ≡ (2πMa R)1/2 ∆r HT◦ ≡− R

A ≡

(6.2)

B

(6.3)

C Dw Da E

(6.4) (6.5) (6.6) (6.7)

As above, ∆r HT◦ and ∆ST◦ are the enthalpy and entropy of the decomposition reaction; Pw and Pa are the excess partial pressures of water vapour and air; Mp , Mw , and Ma are the molar masses of the product, water and air, respectively; Cvw and Cva are the molar heat capacities for water and air; ε is the grain surface emittance, and σ is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant. The expression in square brackets corresponds to the partial pressure of product at comparable magnitudes of excess (external) and equivalent (internal) partial pressures of water [5]. Equation 6.1 can be rewritten in a simplified form: −1/2

4 4 − 2Ti4 + Ti−1 ) + (Dw Pw + Da Pa )Ti (Ti+1 − 2Ti + Ti−1 ) C(Ti+1 1/2 2 E P P w −1/2 w + B exp (6.8) − = 2APw−1 Ti 4 Ti 2

The following additional boundary conditions can be introduced for the central (i = 0 or i = 1) coldest layer: Ti+1 = Ti−1

(6.9)

for an odd total number of layers (nt = 2n + 1) and Ti = Ti−1

(6.10)

for an even number of layers (nt = 2n). Then Eq. 6.8 takes the form: −1/2

C(T14 − T04 ) + (Dw Pw + Da Pa )Ti (T1 − T0 ) 1/2 E Pw Pw2 −1 −1/2 + B exp − = APw Ti 4 Ti 2

(6.11)

6.2 The Temperature Distribution in Powder Reactants

89

for an odd number of layers and −1/2

(T2 − T1 ) C(T24 − T14 ) + (Dw Pw + Da Pa )T1 1/2 2 E Pw Pw −1 −1/2 + B exp = 2APw T1 − 4 Ti 2

(6.12)

for an even number of layers. Setting the temperature of the coldest layer (T0 or T1 ), one can determine the temperature of an adjacent layer using determined Eqs. 6.11 and 6.12. The temperatures of all the other layers can be then sequentially using Eq. 6.8. The (n + 1)-th layer temperature is set to be the same as the furnace temperature. To achieve that, the magnitude of T0 or T1 is varied with all the other conditions kept constant. Software Software to be run on a PC was written in Visual Basic for Windows. A diagram of its algorithm is shown in Fig. 6.1 [5]. After entering all the calculated parameters, namely: furnace temperature, Tf , total number of layers, nt , water vapour pressure, Pw , foreign gas pressure, Pa , parameters A, B, C, D, E and first-layer temperature, which, in the initial stage may be taken to be equal to Tf /2, the temperature of the second layer is calculated by means of an iterative procedure using Eq. 6.12. The T2 magnitude is a varying parameter, and in the first approximation it is equal to T1 . The iteration process proceeds until the difference between the left (L) and right (R) parts of Eq. 6.12 drops to 10−9 . Then the temperatures of all the succeeding layers from T3 to Tn+1 are calculated in a similar way, using Eq. 6.8. The initial temperature for each succeeding layer Ti+1 is taken to be equal to the preceding layer temperature, Ti . When the calculations are finished, the (n + 1)-th layer temperature is compared with the furnace temperature. If the condition |Tf − Tn+1 | ≤ 0.01 is met, the calculation is considered finished. Otherwise the first-layer temperature is either decreased (if Tf < Tn+1 ), or increased (if Tf > Tn+1 ) and the calculation is repeated. If the calculation is performed for different pressures of water vapour (Pstart = Pend ), the above described procedure is repeated for each new Pw value, which is varied from Pstart = 10−5 bar to Pend = 10−2 bar. The results are displayed in the form of graphs and/or tables.

6.2

The Temperature Distribution in Powder Reactants

For an example of the application of the software described above, the temperature distribution in a powder sample of Mg(OH)2 in a high vacuum (in the absence of foreign gas and water vapour), is considered below. The temperature distribution is presented in Fig. 6.2 as a function of the number of layers

90

Fig. 6.1 Flow chart of the calculation program

6 The Self-cooling Effect


91

600

Temperature (K)

550

500

450

400

350 1

10

100

1000

10000

n Fig. 6.2 Calculated temperature distribution for a powder sample of Mg(OH)2 in a vacuum at 500 and 600 K furnace temperature for different numbers of layers

n in the powder for two different furnace temperatures (500 and 600 K). The following conclusions can be drawn from an analysis of the calculated data: •

•

•

Other factors being equal, the temperature of the outer layer of a powder sample is lower than the surface temperature of a single crystal. For example, if the furnace temperature is 600 K, the surface temperature of Mg(OH)2 powder is 582.0 K, whereas the crystal temperature is 593.2 K. The temperature of the outer layer of the powder sample remains practically constant, regardless of the number of layers (for n > 1) and is defined by the furnace temperature only. The difference in neighbouring layer temperatures decreases monotonically with the distance from the surface.

92 •


The temperature of the central layer of the powder sample depends primarily on the number of layers and for n > 1, 000 remains practically constant regardless of the furnace temperature. For example, at furnace temperatures of 500 and 600 K the respective central layer temperatures for Mg(OH)2 powder are 472.7 and 479.3 K for n = 100; 427.2 and 427.8 K for n = 1, 000, and 386.6 K for n = 10, 000.

Parameter ne An underestimation of the temperature non-uniformity in powder samples will obviously be a source of errors in estimations of their kinetic parameters. To make allowance for this factor L’vov et al. [4] suggested introducing the following parameter into the calculation procedure: n

ne ≡

i=0

−1/2

Ti

−1/2

Tn

exp(B/Ti ) (6.13)

exp(B/Tn )

This quantity represents an effective number of powder sample layers, which decompose with the same rate as the surface layer. (This value can be determined simultaneously with calculations of the temperature distribution.) As the calculation results show, the ne magnitude decreases quickly with the furnace temperature rise. At the same time the ne magnitude is essentially independent of the total number of layers n (for n > 100) and is defined by the furnace temperature only. As an example Fig. 6.3 presents the calculated dependence ne = f (Tf ) for the Mg(OH)2 decomposition (for n = 1,000).

Fig. 6.3 Dependence of the effective number of layers ne on the furnace temperature for the decomposition of Mg(OH)2 powder in a vacuum (for n = 1, 000)


93

Corrected Magnitudes of J and E The corrections to the kinetic parameters J and E, measured without regard to temperature distribution in a powder sample, can now be calculated. For both the parameters, the magnitudes of their deviations from those corresponding to the assumed spatially uniform heating of a sample up to the furnace temperature, are defined, firstly, by a difference in the furnace and sample temperatures, Tf and Ts , and, secondly, by the effective number of layers, involved in the decomposition. Taking both these factors into account, one can calculate the corrected magnitudes of the parameters (or, in other words, magnitudes corrected to conditions of the assumed isothermal heating) from the following expressions [4]: P (Tf )n Jexpt P (Ts )ne

(6.14)

(1/Tf − 1/Tf )Eexpt + R ln(ne /ne ) (1/Ts − 1/Ts )

(6.15)

Jcor = and Ecor =

Parameters marked by one or two primes are those for low and high temperature, respectively. Parameters marked by a subscript “expt” are the initial (experimental) values of the kinetic parameters. The magnitudes of P (Tf ) and P (Ts ) correspond to the equilibrium pressure of gaseous product for the corresponding temperatures (water vapour for magnesium hydroxide decomposition). Interpretation of Unusual Effects Modelling of the temperature distribution has allowed, for the first time, some unusual effects observed for powder decomposition to be explained quantitatively. One of these is associated with an independence of the overall decomposition rate on the powder mass, which seems to be inexplicable at first thought. However, when the self-cooling of the sample is taken into account, this effect seems obvious. Irrespective of the total number of layers, i.e., of the powder mass, the effective number of layers ne , involved in the decomposition process should remain practically constant (the height of powder filling is assumed to be much less than its diameter). Another unusual effect associated with temperature non-uniformity in decomposing powder samples of CaCO3 had been described by L’vov et al. [6]. Periodic variations in the absolute decomposition rate appear during the course of decomposition (Fig. 6.4). This effect becomes more marked with an increase in the decomposition temperature and, hence, of the degree of thermal non-uniformity. The initial data for calculations of the absolute rate were obtained by Maciejewski (see [6]) for further usage in an interlaboratory study of kinetic data obtained by means of commonly accepted calculation methods [7]. These kinetic data were measured by means of a Mettler 2000C thermoanalyser during decomposition in a vacuum (5 × 10−8 bar) of CaCO3

94


Decomposition rate (µg m-2s-1)

8 7 823 K

6 5 4

813 K

3

808 K

2

803 K 793 K

1

788 K

0

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Decomposition degree Fig. 6.4 The rate of decomposition of CaCO3 powder as a function of the decomposition degree at different temperatures

powder samples of mass 10 mg in a Pt-Rh crucible 6.3 mm in diameter. The mean radius of the particles was 7.5 µm. Quantitative analysis [6] showed that the number of observed oscillations (4) appeared to be comparable, although twice as low, as the calculated number of layers (n1/2 = 8) of a powder sample. This allowed L’vov et al. [6] to admit that, at sufficiently loose packing of spherical particles, the two neighbouring layers of the powder sample heat up from the container walls in a similar way. Only after complete decomposition of these layers does the decomposition of the next two succeeding layers begin, including initial stages of nucleation and acceleration. However, a discrepancy between the number of layers and that of oscillations may also be due to an error in determination of the mean size of the particles. If the particle radius was 9.5 µm instead of 7.5 µm, the number of layers would decrease from 8 to 4.

6.3

Experimental Evaluation of Self-cooling

Method With the exception of installation of a thermocouple between two alum crystals pressed up together [1–3], no simple and reliable methods for the experimental determination of the magnitude of self-cooling in a decomposing solid existed until recent years. Verification of the above calculations was thus difficult. The situation changed for the better only very recently with the appearance of third-law methodology in TA [8].

6.3 Experimental Evaluation of Self-cooling

95

In contrast to the second-law method, for the third-law method the influence of self-cooling manifests itself in overestimation of the E parameter. This is evident from Eqs. 4.10–4.12. Therefore, the ratio of these two values measured by different methods is a very sensitive indicator of self-cooling. If the only cause of overestimation of the experimental values Eexpt , calculated by the third-law method, is the self-cooling effect, then its magnitude can be easily determined. If it is also assumed that the E magnitude at the lower temperature is free of this effect (i.e., that the sample temperature, Ts , is equal to the furnace temperature, Tf ) and corresponds to the true value of the E parameter, Etrue , then it becomes possible to determine the actual value of sample temperature for any higher decomposition temperature. This temperature is equal to: Etrue (6.16) Ts = Tf Eexpt if a small systematic decrease of both thermodynamic parameters (∆r ST◦ and ∆r HT◦ ) with a temperature rise is neglected. Therefore, the difference, ∆T = Ts −Tf , actually corresponds to the magnitude of the self-cooling of the sample at the higher temperature of the experiment, assuming ∆T = 0 at its lower temperature. The above assumption, that self-cooling is the only cause of overestimation of the experimental values Eexpt , is valid only for reactants decomposing to gaseous products. For decompositions with formation of a solid product, there is an additional reason for overestimation related to the condensation effect (Sect. 8.2). Therefore, it is more appropriate to call this combined effect the apparent self-cooling effect. Effect of a Solid Product on Self-cooling The self-cooling effect is more noticeable for compounds decomposing with formation of solid products, as can be seen from a comparison of the results listed in Tables 9.2 and 9.3 below. In contrast to a group of reactants decomposing with formation of gaseous products only (Table 9.2), where only 4 of the 21 compounds (SnO2 , GaN, Be3 N2 , and Mg3 N2 ) differ in values of the E parameter measured with the second-law and third-law methods, such a difference is observed for 16 of the 20 reactants in Table 9.3. This difference can be easily explained. For formation of solid product on the reactant surface, heating of the sample in a high vacuum by radiation (for example, from the walls of an alumina container) occurs through an intermediate product layer, for example, CaO for the CaCO3 decomposition. This means that the effective value of the emittance for heat transfer from the container walls to the calcite crystal covered by a CaO layer, is the product of the corresponding coefficients for the four surfaces: Al2 O3 , CaO (outward side), CaO (inward side), and CaCO3 . (The residual thermal conductivity through point contacts between CaCO3 crystal and CaO nanoparticles is neglected.) If

96


it is assumed that the emittance, ε, is the same for all the surfaces and equal to 0.3, then their product or the resulting emittance, ε∗ , should be close to 0.01. Impact of Self-cooling and Condensation Effects on the E Parameters The initial data for the analysis below were taken from the literature (Table 6.1). The list of reactants in this table includes two groups of compounds, the first of which decompose to gaseous products, and the second, to solid and gaseous products. Except for the CaCO3 decomposition [6], all other reactions were investigated in works of Searcy and his colleagues [9–13], and Okhotnikov et al. [14–17]. All the experiments were performed in a high vacuum. Table 6.1 contains the values of molar enthalpies for these reactions at the minimum and maximum temperatures of the experiments, which were calcuIII III and Emax ), and the molar lated by L’vov using the third-law method (Emin enthalpies determined experimentally in the original works by the second-law method (E II ) and also their calculated values. The following Eq. 6.17 was used for calculations: III E III /Tmin − Emax /Tmax (6.17) E II = min 1/Tmin − 1/Tmax This equation, which can be derived from Eq. 4.2, is strictly valid if a small decrease of the entropy change with a temperature increase is neglected. As can be seen from Eq. 6.17, equality of the molar enthalpies determined by the III III = Emax . second- and third-law methods (E II = E III ) can be reached if Emin Analysis of the data listed in Table 6.1 yields the following conclusions. •

•

•

III III The ratio Emax /Emin for all the reactants except for Li2 SO4 ·H2 O [14] varies in the range 1.01–1.06 (the average value is 1.032). At the same time, the III II /Eexpt varies in the range 1.14–2.12 (the average value is 1.38). ratio Emin Therefore, a rather small increase of E III values with temperature produces a large decrease of E II values. The calculated values of E II are in a good agreement with the experimental data. This fact supports the validity of the correlation between E II and E III values described by Eq. 6.17 III II The ratio Emin /Eexpt for the reactants decomposed to gaseous products (the average value is 1.16) is significantly lower than that for the reactants decomposed to solid and gaseous products (the average value is 1.57). This difference is related to the apparent self-cooling effect, i.e., with the true self-cooling effect and the additional effect of condensation. The problem III II /Eexpt ratio of how to estimate the impact of these factors on the Emin separately remains unsolved. In conformity with the above theoretical estimations (Sects. 6.1–6.3), the temperature difference between the temperature-controlled heater and a sample in a high vacuum amounts to a few tens of degrees (e.g., 20–30 K for the first three reactants in Table 6.1). This systematic error in combination with the condensation effect manifests itself in a considerable (up to 15–50%) underestimation of E parameters when the second-law method is used.

Be3 N2 ↔ 3Be(g) + 1.52N + 0.24N2 SnO2 ↔ SnO(g) + O GaN ↔ Ga(g) + 0.42N + 0.29N2 BaCO3 ↔ BaO(g)↓ + CO2 CaCO3 ↔ CaO(g)↓ + CO2 1/2CaMg(CO3 )2 ↔ 1/2CaO(g)↓ + 1/2MgO(g)↓ + CO2 Li2 SO4 · H2 O ↔ Li2 SO4 (g)↓ + H2 O Li2 SO4 · H2 O ↔ Li2 SO4 (g)↓ + H2 O CaSO4 · 2H2 O ↔ CaSO4 (g)↓ + 2H2 O CuSO4 · 5H2 O ↔ CuSO4 (g)↓ + 5H2 O 1,610 1,270 1,166 1,076 863 824 348 315 288 255

Min. 1,880 1,485 1,428 1,232 948 900 433 363 357 303

Max.

T (K)

486 411 356 299 266 246 104 108 97.6 88.0

Min. 493 418 366 318 273 258 115 112 101 89.8

Max.

E III (kJ mol−1 )

1.01 1.02 1.03 1.06 1.03 1.05 1.11 1.04 1.03 1.02

III /E III Emax min

428 351 305 168 191 116 50.6 84.9 82.8 74.5

Expt

444 370 311 168 195 116 59 82 83 78

Calc. 1.14 1.17 1.17 1.78 1.40 2.12 2.06 1.27 1.18 1.18

[9] [10] [11] [12] [6] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

III /E II E II (kJ mol−1 ) Emin expt Ref.

Impact of self-cooling and the condensation effects on the E parameters measured by the second- and third-law methods

Decomposition Reaction

Table 6.1

6.3 Experimental Evaluation of Self-cooling 97

98


References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

Smith ML, Topley B (1931) Proc Roy Soc A134:224–245 Cooper MM, Garner WE (1940) Proc Roy Soc A174:487–503 Anous MM, Bradley RS, Colvin J (1951) J Chem Soc 3348–3354 L’vov BV, Novichikhin AV, Dyakov AO (1998) Thermochim Acta 315:135–143 L’vov BV, Novichikhin AV, Dyakov AO (1998) Thermochim Acta 315:169–179 L’vov BV, Polzik LK, Ugolkov VL (2002) Thermochim Acta 390:5–19 Brown ME, Maciejewski M, Vyazovkin S, et al. (2000) Thermochim Acta 355:125–143 L’vov BV (2002) Thermochim Acta 389:199–211 Hoenig CL, Searcy AW (1967) J Am Ceram Soc 50:460–466 Hoenig CL, Searcy AW (1966) J Am Ceram Soc 49:128–134 Munir ZA, Searcy AW (1965) J Chem Phys 42:4223–4228 Basu TK, Searcy AW (1976) J Chem Soc Faraday Trans I 72:1889–1895 Powell EK, Searcy AW (1978) J Am Ceram Soc 61:216–221 Modestov AN, Poplaukhin PV, Lyakhov NZ (2001) J Therm Anal Cal 65:121–130 Kirdyashkina NA, Okhotnikov VB (1988) React Kinet Catal Lett 36:417–422 Okhotnikov VB, Petrov SE, Yakobson BI, Lyakhov NZ (1987) Reactivity of Solids 2:359–372 17. Okhotnikov VB, Lyakhov NZ (1984) J Solid State Chem 53:161–167

Chapter 7

The Topley–Smith Effect 7.1

Historical Background

An abnormal change of the dehydration rate, J, of crystalline hydrates with an increase of water vapour pressure, Pw , was discovered by Topley and Smith (T–S) in 1931 [1] in their studies of the dehydration rate of MnC2 O4 · 2H2 O. In contrast to the expected monotonous decrease of the rate with increasing Pw , the dehydration rate, on reaching a certain critical pressure (about 0.1 Torr), begins to increase, passes through a maximum (about 1 Torr), and then decreases (Fig. 7.1). Since then, the T–S effect has been observed in a few dozens of crystalline hydrates [1–17] (see Table 7.1 [3]). Frost et al. [5–8] in the 1950s and Bertrand et al. [11–13] in the 1970s made the most important contributions to studies of this effect. However no generally accepted explanation of this phenomenon has been developed till now, that would be able to interpret the shape of the curve J = f (Pw ) and specific features of the effect under varying measurement conditions: temperature, sample mass, powder grain size, presence of foreign gases, etc. Among three or four mechanisms suggested by different researchers, the most popular one is a mechanism of product recrystallization in the presence of H2 O, suggested by Volmer and Seydel [4]. This mechanism implies the formation, during the recrystallization process, of additional channels, cracks and pores between product grains, which facilitate water vapour removal from the reaction zone and, as a result, the rate of dehydration increases.

Decomposition rate

1

0

0

1

2

3

4

5

Pw (Torr) Fig. 7.1 The Topley–Smith effect. The dehydration rate of MnC2 O4 · 2H2 O at 76◦ C in the presence of water vapour. (Reproduced from [2], with permission.)

99

100 Table 7.1

7 The Topley–Smith Effect Studies of the Topley–Smith effect [2] T (◦ C)

Reactant

Product

MnC2 O4 · 2H2 O MnC2 O4 · 2H2 O MnC2 O4 · 2H2 O ZnSO4 · 6H2 O CuSO4 · 5H2 O MnSO4 · 5H2 O ZnSO4 · 7H2 O FeSO4 · 7H2 O Ni(NO3 )2 · 7H2 O MgSO4 · 7H2 O NiSO4 · 6H2 O MgSO4 · 7H2 O CoCl2 · 6H2 O CaSO4 · 0.5H2 O CaC2 O4 · H2 O CuSO4 · 5H2 O Li2 SO4 · H2 O MgSO4 · 7H2 O CuSO4 · 5H2 O CuSO4 · 3H2 O NaB4 O5 (OH)4 · 8H2 O CuSO4 · 5H2 O MgC2 O4 · 2H2 O Zn(HCO2 )2 · 2H2 O Er(HCO2 )3 · 2H2 O BaCl2 · 2H2 O

MnC2 O4 MnC2 O4 MnC2 O4 ZnSO4 · H2 O CuSO4 · H2 O MnSO4 · H2 O ZnSO4 · H2 O FeSO4 · H2 O Ni(NO3 )2 · 2H2 O MgSO4 · H2 O NiSO4 · H2 O MgSO4 · H2 O CoCl2 · H2 O CaSO4 CaC2 O4 CuSO4 · H2 O Li2 SO4 MgSO4 · 2H2 O CuSO4 · 3H2 O CuSO4 · H2 O NaB4 O5 (OH)4

40 30 140 120 31 86 86 52 54 38

CuSO4 · 3H2 O MgC2 O4 Zn(HCO2 )2 Er(HCO2 )3 BaCl2 · H2 O

45 114 100 124 44

a

76 76 60 45 40 40 40 60 50 40

Grain Diameter (µm) 88 310–420 310–420 310–420 310–420 310–420 310–420 310–420 310–420 310–420 310–420 64–75 120–150 90–100 < 63 63–90 < 40 63–90 15–20 120–150 160–250 250–310 53–63

Pw (Torr) Min.

Max.

0.1 0.125 0.061 0.8 0.3 1.1 1.5a 6 2.5 5

1.0 0.96 0.26 1.55 3.4 3.0 4.0 8 2.9 7

4 5 0.5 0.4 1.7 8 1 0.2 5 1 0.5

0.7

Ref. and Year of Publication

15 0.7 17 1 1.3 2 30 6 3 12

[1] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [7] [7] [7] [7] [7] [8] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [12] [12] [12] [12]

1931 1935 1937 1951 1953 1955 1955 1955 1955 1955 1955 1956 1956 1970 1970 1972 1974 1974 1974 1974 1974

3 2 0.7 0.5 1.2

[13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

1978 1978 1989 1992 1995

Two minima and two maxima were observed at 0.2 and 0.7 Torr, and 1.5 and 4.0 Torr

The model suggested by Bertrand et al. [11–13] assumed the existence of a spatial gradient of temperature in the reaction zone. In this model the abnormal rise of the dehydration rate with Pw was attributed to the increase of heat transfer from the furnace to the self-cooled reactant. Model calculations and experiments on the evaporation and condensation of ethanol and water vapours provided a convincing proof of this mechanism. In the experiments [13], the temperature of the evaporating liquids turned out to be much lower than that of the heater. For instance, for ethanol the difference from the thermostat temperature (300 K) was as much as 45 K or 15%. However, this model remained unclaimed during the following 20 years of studies on the T–S effect. Such a considerable difference in temperatures between the crystalline hydrate and the furnace seemed improbable to the majority of researchers.

7.2 Modelling of the Topley–Smith Effect for Li2 SO4 · H2 O

7.2

101

Modelling of the Topley–Smith Effect for Li2 SO4 ·H2 O

For modelling of the T–S effect, L’vov et al. [3] used the software described in Sect. 6.1 and parameters listed in Table 7.2. The calculation results are shown below in a graphic form. As may be deduced from the shape of the curves J = f (Pw ) in Figs. 7.2 and 7.3, the Pw rise from 10−5 to 10−2 bar leads to the rate increase and the appearance of maxima on the curves, which is in complete agreement with experimental observations. This is due to the increase in the thermal conductivity of water vapour which results in a decrease of self-cooling. The T–S effect becomes more marked with a rise of Tf and n, which is also in good correspondence with the experimental data [12, 13] and, in particular, with an intensification of the effect with the decrease of powder grain size [13]. Nevertheless, the comparison of calculation curves J = f (Pw ) presented in Figs. 7.2 and 7.3 with the experimental curve in Fig. 7.1 reveals also some inherent differences in their shapes. Firstly, over the initial part of the experimental curve the decomposition rate decreases with Pw rise, and a minimum is formed. Secondly, the decrease of dehydration rate after the maximum occurs much faster than in the calculations, so that the maximum on the experimental curves J = f (Pw ) is sharper. The cause of the first of these differences is probably due to a presence of residual air in the reaction system. This air participates in the heat transfer and, therefore, in a decrease of self-cooling. Given that Pw < Pa , addition of water vapour should result in a rate decrease only. This assumption is confirmed by the curves in Fig. 7.4, which were calculated for the same temperature (380 K) as those in Fig. 7.3, but with due account for the presence of air with pressures of 10−4 , 3×10−4 and 10−3 bar. The initial decrease of dehydration rate is absent in experiments on the dehydrations of CoCl2 · 6H2 O [8], Zn(HCO2 )2 · 2H2 O [15] and Er(HCO2 )3 · 2H2 O [16], so that experimental Table 7.2

Parameters used in the calculations of the Topley–Smith effect [3]

Parameter

Symbol

Value

Molar mass of Li2 SO4 · H2 O Molar mass of Li2 SO4 Molar mass of H2 O Molar mass of air (N2 ) Enthalpy of dehydration reaction Entropy of dehydration reaction Molar heat capacity of air Molar heat capacity of H2 O vapour Emittance

Mr Mp Mw Ma ◦ ∆r H298 ◦ ∆S298 Cva Cvw ε

0.124 kg mol−1 0.106 kg mol−1 0.018 kg mol−1 0.028 kg mol−1 193.8 kJ mol−1 350.5 J mol−1 K−1 20.8 J mol−1 K−1 27.4 J mol−1 K−1 0.62

102

7 The Topley–Smith Effect

Fig. 7.2 Shapes of the calculated curves J = f (Pw ). Decomposition rate (g m−2 s−1 ) of Li2 SO4 · H2 O powder (n = 10) as a function of partial pressure of H2 O vapour at various temperatures. (Reproduced from [3], with permission.)

curves are more similar to the calculation curves presented in Figs. 7.2 and 7.3, rather than to those in Fig. 7.4. According to molecular physics [18], an increase in thermal conductivity with vapour pressure should occur only until the average free-path length, λ, of the H2 O molecules approaches that of the distance between powder grains. The dependence of the magnitude of λ on the molecular radius, r, and the concentration, N , is [18]: 1 (7.1) λ= √ 4 2πr2 N The radii of the H2 O and N2 molecules are about the same and equal to r = 1.75×10−10 m [18]. After inserting this magnitude into Eq. 7.1 and substituting the molecular concentration N for pressure (in bars) and temperature,


103

Fig. 7.3 Shapes of the calculated curves J = f (Pw ). Decomposition rate (g m−2 s−1 ) of Li2 SO4 · H2 O monocrystal (n = 1) and Li2 SO4 · H2 O powder (n = 2, 10 and 100) as a function of partial pressure of H2 O vapour at Tf = 380 K. (Reproduced from [3], with permission.)

a final expression, common for both H2 O and N2 molecules, has the form: λ = 2.5 × 10−10 T /P

(7.2)

Most probably the second of above-mentioned differences is due to the fact that the average free-path length of H2 O molecules at the maximum of the curve J = f (Pw ) becomes equal to the distance between powder layers. This distance may be taken to be approximately equal to half of the powder grain diameter (d/2), whence it follows that: λmax ∼ = d/2

(7.3)

Figure 7.5 presents curves J = f (Pw ) (in logarithmic and linear scale), calculated assuming that Pa = 10−3 bar and that the thermal conductivity increases up to Pw = 2 × 10−3 bar (1.52 Torr) at the expense of H2 O vapour. For Pw magnitudes higher than 2 × 10−3 bar the thermal conductivity was assumed

104


Fig. 7.4 Shapes of the calculated curves J = f (Pw ). Decomposition rate (g m−2 s−1 ) of Li2 SO4 ·H2 O powder (n = 10) as a function of partial pressure of H2 O vapour at Tf = 380 K for different partial pressures of air (Pa ): (a) 10−4 bar, (b) 3 × 10−4 bar and (c) 10−3 bar. (Reproduced from [3], with permission.)

to be constant. As can be seen, after passing the maximum the rate drops more sharply, and the maximum itself becomes more profound. (Due to the powder polydispersity in real conditions, the boundary corresponding to the attainment of maximal thermal conductivity may be fuzzy.) The above mechanism responsible for the formation of the maximum permits the fairly broad variation in the values of (Pw )max , which correspond to the maxima in the J = f (Pw ) curves, observed for different crystalline hydrates, and in some cases also the differences between the values of (Pw )max found for the same crystalline hydrate (see Table 7.1) to be explained. The extreme values of (Pw )max , which are 0.26 Torr for MnC2 O4 · 2H2 O [4] and 30 Torr for MgSO4 · 4H2 O [12], correspond, according to Eq. 7.2, to the values of λmax and, hence, of the grain radius, d/2, equal, respectively, to 240 and 2.3 µm. For some reactants, the values of λmax calculated using Eq. 7.2


105

Fig. 7.5 Shapes of the calculated curves J = f (Pw ). Decomposition rate (g m−2 s−1 ) of Li2 SO4 ·H2 O powder (n = 10) as a function of partial pressure of H2 O vapour at Pa = 10−3 bar on (a) logarithmic and (b) linear scales. (Reproduced from [3], with permission.)

agree fairly satisfactorily (within a factor two) with the average grain radii quoted in the corresponding publications: MnC2 O4 · 2H2 O [13], CoCl2 · 6H2 O [18], CaC2 O4 · H2 O [10], LiSO4 · H2 O [12], CuSO4 · 3H2 O [12], CuSO4 · 5H2 O [13], MgC2 O4 · 2H2 O [14], Zn(HCO2 )2 · 2H2 O [15], Er(HCO2 )3 · 2H2 O [16] and BaCl2 · 2H2 O [17]. At the same time the calculations were found to disagree strongly with experiment for some reactants. For ZnSO4 · 6H2 O [5], CuSO4 · 5H2 O [6], MnSO4 · 4H2 O [7], ZnSO4 · 7H2 O [7], FeSO4 · 7H2 O [7], Ni(NO3 )2 · 7H2 O [7], MgSO4 · 7H2 O [7, 8], MgSO4 · 4H2 O [12] and NaB4 O5 (OH)4 · 8H2 O [12], the calculated values of λmax were found to lie below the grain radius by an order of magnitude. This is possibly due to the fact that the sizes quoted in the papers relate to the starting (undecomposed) powder grains. As a result of the formation of smaller particles during the course of decomposition, the distance between grains in the reactant/product mixture decreases. In summary, modelling of the T − S effect not only confirmed the abnormal change of dehydration rate in the presence of water vapour, but also allowed various specific features of this phenomenon to be explained, in particular, an enhancement of the effect with increasing temperature and with decreasing powder grain size.

106

7.3


Modelling of the Topley–Smith Effect for CaCO3

Until recently, the T–S effect had been observed for crystalline hydrates only and, hence, was associated with peculiarities of the dehydration reactions. Modelling of the T–S effect for CaCO3 considered below has been stimulated by the results of Darroudi and Searcy [19], who studied the influence of additions of 10−6 –10−3 bar of CO2 on the CaCO3 decomposition at different temperatures. In the figures of their work [19] at 983, 1,006 and 1,073 K one can observe a well-defined curvature or even the appearance of a maximum on the curves J = f (PCO2 ). As an illustration, Fig. 7.6 presents experimental data obtained at 1,006 K. To prove the possibility of the appearance of a T–S effect L’vov [20] modelled the curve J = f (PCO2 ) for decomposition of single crystals of CaCO3 , using the same software as had been used for dehydration reactions. The heat spent for decomposition was assumed to be compensated in part at the expense of heater radiation and thermal conductivity of the excess CO2 present in the reactor. The result of modelling [20] under these conditions (1,000 K) was that the T–S effect could be observed only when the emittance ε became lower than 0.02 (Fig. 7.6). At higher magnitudes of ε the maximum disappears and only a small distortion of the J = f (PCO2 ) curve is observed. The self-cooling effect appears to be insignificant and, thus, some increase of CaCO3 temperature 0.08 0.07

J (g m-2 s-1)

0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00

−7

−6

−5

−4

−3

−2

log (PCO2 (bar)) Fig. 7.6 The Topley–Smith effect for CaCO3 . Two sets of experimental data (points) were taken from [19], with permission. Theoretical curves were calculated for different emittance factors: (above) 0.002 and (below) 0.0015

7.3 Modelling of the Topley–Smith Effect for CaCO3

107

with the rise of CO2 pressure is compensated by the suppressing effect of CO2 (in the isobaric regime) on the decomposition rate. The relatively low magnitude of the emittance in experiments described by Darroudi and Searcy [19] is confirmed by consideration of the experimental conditions used. To decrease the temperature gradient and to interaction of CO2 with the tungsten heater, a platinum cylinder, 3 cm in diameter and 10 cm high, was placed around the sample. As a result, the sample was heated by emission from platinum and the magnitude of ε was only 0.10 [22] or even 0.08 [23]. Taking into account the formation of a product layer (CaO) on the CaCO3 surface, the resulting emittance ε∗ (considering the successive thermal emission from the platinum surface to the CaO surface and from that to the CaCO3 surface) was unlikely to be higher than 0.01–0.02. The shapes of theoretical and experimental curves in Fig. 7.6 are very similar. In line with the calculations, a maximum and curvature are observed on the curves at a pressure of 10−4 bar. The difference in the calculated and experimental values of the absolute decomposition rate is not more than twofold. Taking into account the simplifications used in the calculation model and measurement errors, the agreement is excellent. Another important conclusion that can be drawn from the analysis of the results in [19] is an explanation of the apparent differences in behaviour of the decomposition rate of CaCO3 in the presence of CO2 reported by different researchers (a hyperbolic variation in [23–25] and close to linear in [19]). This is, once again, due to the effect of intense self-cooling of the sample in a high vacuum. Instead of the expected 100-fold decrease of decomposition rate as the pressure changes in the range from 10−6 to 10−4 bar CO2 , its magnitude holds practically constant [19]. Only at CO2 pressures exceeding 10−4 bar (used in papers [23–25]), does the increase of thermal conductivity, compensating for the depressing effect of CO2 , stop and the dependence of the decomposition rate of CaCO3 on CO2 approaches hyperbolic behaviour. Self-cooling in a High Vacuum To prove the above conclusion, it is possible to estimate the value of self-cooling for the calcite decomposition in the experiments by Darroudi and Searcy [19]. Recall that as the CO2 pressure was increased from 10−6 to 10−4 bar the decomposition rate of CaCO3 at 1,006 K held practically constant. This means that the suppressing influence of CO2 on the decomposition rate J was compensated for by differences in temperature of the CaCO3 crystals. Using Eq. 3.26 for reactant decomposition in the isobaric mode, the equality of the rates, J1 = J2 , can be expressed in the following way (the differences in magnitudes of the pre-exponential factors for J2 and J1 at T2 and T1 are neglected):

P2 P1

b/a

= exp

∆r HT◦ ∆r HT◦ − aRT1 aRT2

(7.4)

108

7 The Topley–Smith effect

Here P1 = 10−6 bar and P2 = 10−4 bar, T1 and T2 are reactant temperatures corresponding to these pressures. After taking the logarithm: 1 bR 1 = + ln(P2 /P1 ) T1 T2 ∆r HT◦

(7.5)

For the decomposition temperature T2 to be equal to the furnace tem◦ /b ∼ perature, i.e., 1,000 K and the enthalpy value ∆H1000 = 500 kJ mol−1 , ∼ T1 = 929 K. This is 71 K lower than the furnace temperature. The magnitude obtained is consistent with ∆T magnitudes (78, 25 and 44 K for BaCO3 , CaCO3 and CaMg(CO3 )2 , respectively), measured by the third-law method (Table 6.1).

7.4

Conclusions

The most important result of Chaps. 6 and 7 devoted to self-cooling and to observations of the T–S effect, is the unexpectedly high magnitude of selfcooling. This manifests itself not only in a surprisingly high thermal inhomogeneity of powders, but also in temperatures of single crystals which in specific (extreme) experimental conditions may differ from the furnace temperature by a few tens of degrees. The T–S effect becomes apparent under extreme conditions of such kind. The temperature for experiments on the T–S effect is chosen to be much higher than temperatures typical for usual experiments on the decomposition kinetics in the absence of an excess of gaseous product. For crystalline hydrates this excess of temperature may reach 30–50 K, and for calcium carbonate, 100– 150 K. This is because the decomposition in the isobaric mode is slower than in the equimolar mode. However, for initial points of the T–S curve corresponding to the absence of gaseous product or to a very low pressure of this gaseous product, this temperature is obviously much higher than the optimal value. That is why self-cooling appears to be well above the common value. Historically the underestimation of the role and magnitude of the selfcooling effect in kinetic studies of thermal decomposition has turned out to be one of the most important reasons which hindered interpretation of the T–S effect and, to some extent, the compensation effect, and promoted some misconceptions [19, 26–28], based on the confidence in infallibility of the second-law method in determination of thermochemical parameters (the enthalpy and entropy for decomposition reactions).

References 1. Topley B, Smith ML (1931) Nature 128:302 2. Topley B, Smith ML (1935) J Chem Soc 321–325 3. L’vov BV, Novichikhin AV, Dyakov AO (1988) Thermochim Acta 315:169–179


References 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

109

Volmer M, Seydel G Z. (1937) Phys Chem A179:153–171 Frost GB, Moon KA, Tompkins EH (1951) Can J Chem 29:604–632 Frost GB, Campbell RA (1953) Can J Chem 31:107–119 Wheeler RC, Frost GB (1955) Can J Chem 33:546–561 Ford RW, Frost GB (1956) Can J Chem 34:591–599 Ball MC, Urie RG (1970) J Chem Soc A 528–530 Dollimore D, Jones TE, Spooner P (1970) J Chem Soc A 2809–2812 Lallemant M, Bertrand G, Watelle-Marion G (1972) C R Acad Sci Paris 275:519 Bertrand G, Lallemant M, Watelle-Marion G (1974) J Inorg Nucl Chem 36:1303–1309 Bertrand G, Lallemant M, Mokhlisse A, Watelle-Marion G (1978) J Inorg Nucl Chem 40: 819–824 Dollimore D, Heal GR, Mason J (1978) Thermochim Acta 24:307–314 Masuda Y, Nagagata K (1989) Thermochim Acta 155:255–261 Masuda Y, Hirata K, Ito Y (1992) Thermochim Acta 203:289–296 Lumpkin JA, Perlmutter DD (1995) Thermochim Acta 249:335–349 Kikoin AK, Kikoin IK (1976) Molecular physics. Nauka, Moscow (in Russian) Darroudi T, Searcy AW (1981) J Phys Chem 85:3971–3974 L’vov BV (2002) Thermochim Acta 386:1–16 Kikoin IK (1976) (ed) Tables of physical constants. Atomizdat, Moscow (in Russian) Svet DYa (1968) Objective methods of high temperature pyrometry for continuum radiation. Nauka, Moscow (in Russian) Criado JM, Gonzalez M, Malek J, Ortega A (1995) Thermochim Acta 254:121–127 Hyatt EP, Cutler IB, Wadsworth ME (1958) J Am Ceram Soc 41:70–74 Ingraham TR, Marier P (1963) Can J Chem Eng 41:170–173 Beruto D, Searcy AW (1974) J Chem Soc Faraday Trans I 70:2145–2153 Powell EK, Searcy AW (1980) Met Trans B11:427–432 Beruto DT, Searcy AW, Kim MG (2004) Thermochim Acta 424:99–109

Chapter 8

Impact of Vapour Condensation on the Reaction Enthalpy 8.1

The Contribution of Condensation Energy to the Reaction Enthalpy

The τ Coefficient According to the CDV mechanism, for the decomposition of compound R into gaseous products A and B and the subsequent condensation of the low-volatility component A R(s) ↔ aA(g) + bB(g) → aA(s) + bB(g) an additional term τ a∆c HT◦ (A) should be introduced into calculation of the decomposition enthalpy. This term takes into account the partial transfer of condensation energy to the reactant. The transfer coefficient τ , corresponds to the part of the energy a∆c HT◦ (A), returned to the reactant. Thus: ∆r HT◦ = a∆f HT◦ (A) + b∆f HT◦ (B) − ∆f HT◦ (R) + τ a∆c HT◦ (A) = ∆v HT◦ + τ a∆c HT◦ (A)

(8.1)

Here ∆v HT◦ is the enthalpy of the initial evaporation process. Hence it follows that: νE − ∆v HT◦ ∆r HT◦ − ∆v HT◦ = (8.2) τ= a∆c HT◦ (A) a∆c HT◦ (A) Originally the coefficient τ was introduced into the CDV mechanism as an adjustable parameter aimed to connect the E parameter with the enthalpy of an assumed reaction [1]. It was supposed [2] that, in the majority of cases, the condensation energy would be distributed equally among solid phases of the reactant and product, so that the coefficient τ would be equal to 0.50. However, as became evident later, when the coefficients τ had been determined for a sufficient number of reactants, this is not true [3]. Correlation between the τ Coefficient and Thermodynamic Features of the Low-volatility Product An analysis of variations of the coefficient τ for 16 different compounds, studied by L’vov and Ugolkov [3–6], allowed these magnitudes to be connected with the oversaturation of the vapour of the lowvolatility component at the moment of decomposition. The complete list of these reactants is presented in Table 8.1. This dependence, having a correlation coefficient (r2 ) equal to 0.866 can be described by the following equation (Fig. 8.1): τ1 = 0.339 log c1 + 0.028

(8.3) 111

112

8 Impact of Vapour Condensation on the Reaction Enthalpy

Table 8.1 Dependence of the τ coefficient on the energy of condensation and the oversaturation degree of low-volatility product at the decomposition temperature (with consideration of the refinements and supplements noted in Part III) Reactant

Product

T a (K)

P∞ (bar)

c1

c2

τ

Ref.

BN AgNO3 SrCO3 Cd(NO3 )2 MgSO4 CaCO3 Ba(OH)2 Cd(OH)2 MgCa(CO3 )2 MgCO3 Sr(OH)2 Zn(OH)2 Mg(OH)2 Ca(OH)2 Li2 SO4 · H2 O Be(OH)2

B Ag SrO CdO MgO CaO BaO CdO MgO + CaO MgO SrO ZnO MgO CaO Li2 SO4 BeO

1, 790 472 1, 456 563 1, 000 1, 200 600 400 824 800 600 400 500 600 300 400


1.03 17.1 4.7 14.6 15.9 12.8 20.5 27.4 27.9 24.1 33.5 42.3 48.8 42.0 49.6 79.8

3.63 4.28 3.83 4.27 4.33 4.20 4.40 4.67 4.52 4.55 4.77 4.94 4.96 4.95 4.84 5.42

0.044 0.259 0.334 0.394 0.412 0.449 0.496 0.441 0.449 0.536 0.586 0.572 0.585 0.632 0.656 0.724

[3] Sect. 16.11 Sect. 16.14 Sect. 16.11 [3] [3] [4] [4] [5] [3] [4] [4] [4] [4] [1, 6] [4]

a

Temperature that corresponds to Peqp ∼ = 2 × 10−8 bar

where c1 ≡ log(Peqp /P∞ ). Here Peqp and P∞ are equilibrium and saturated pressures of the low-volatility product, respectively. This correlation can be improved considerably if AgNO3 , Cd(NO3 )2 , Cd(OH)2 , and MgCa(CO3 )2 are excluded from the list of reactants. These reactants have the lowest values of the τ coefficient. The reason for excluding these compounds is that, because of their relatively low decomposition temperatures, self-cooling effects may result in their τ magnitudes being underestimated. Figure 8.2 presents the corresponding results. The approximating 0.8 τ = 0.339 log c1 + 0.028 r2 = 0.8406

t parameter

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 0

0.5

1 log c1

Fig. 8.1 Approximation of the τ coefficient by Eq. 8.3

1.5

2

8.1 The Contribution of Condensation Energy to the Reaction Enthalpy

113

0.8 τ = 0.339 log c1 + 0.058 r2 = 0.969

t parameter

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 0

0.5

1

1.5

2

log c1 Fig. 8.2 Approximation of the τ coefficient by Eq. 8.4

function then takes the form: τ1 = 0.339 log c1 + 0.058

(8.4)

and r2 = 0.969. Another possible way of describing the correlation between the τ coefficient and the thermodynamic characteristics of the low-volatility product has been suggested in [4]. The approximating function for all the 16 compounds has the following form (Fig. 8.3): τ2 = 0.353c2 − 1.127

(8.5)

A reduced value of the condensation energy, c2 ≡ ln[−∆c HT◦ /(RT )], is used here as a controlling parameter instead of the vapour oversaturation, c1 ≡ log(Peqp /P∞ ). The correlation coefficient, as compared to that in equation (8.3) rose from 0.866 to 0.883. The correlation between τ and c2 may be improved further (up to r2 = 0.919), if a quadratic polynomial [7] (Fig. 8.4) is used: (8.6) τ2 = −0.1182(c2 )2 + 1.3862c2 − 3.359 In general, the correlation revealed is a very important step in the development of this approach. Firstly, a very unusual relation occurs between the condensation energy transfer (τ coefficient) and vapour oversaturation, Peqp /P∞ , of the low-volatility product. As can be seen from Eq. 8.3 this relation is doubly logarithmic, and thus, it is very weak. (For Eq. 8.5, besides the logarithmic relationship c2 ≡ ln[−∆c HT◦ /(RT )], account must be taken of an additional logarithmic relation of the reduced value of condensation enthalpy ∆c HT◦ /(RT ) with P∞ .) Variation of P∞ from 4.1 × 10−13 bar for SrCO3 to 3.4 × 10−88 bar for Be(OH)2 (within 75 orders of magnitude) produces only

114


0.8

t parameter

0.6

0.4

τ = 0.353c 2 − 1.127

0.2

r2 = 0.883

0 3

3.5

4

4.5 c2

5

5.5

6


about a twofold increase in τ magnitude (from 0.33 to 0.72). The correlation revealed may become a key point in the understanding of the mechanism of condensation energy transfer. Secondly, the discovered correlation (in the form of the semi-empirical dependences presented above) may be used for theoretical calculations of decomposition kinetics and for thermochemical analysis of the composition of primary reaction products, which is one of the final goals of this research (see Chapter 9). 0.8

t parameter

0.6

0.4

0.2

τ = − 0.118c 22 + 1.386c 2 − 3.359 r2 = 0.919

0 3

3.5

4

4.5 c2


5

5.5

6

8.2 Increase of Reaction Enthalpy with Temperature

8.2

115

Increase of Reaction Enthalpy with Temperature

Another unexpected consequence of this condensation energy transfer is the enthalpy rise with temperature. The magnitude of oversaturation, which determines the condensation energy transfer to reactant, decreases with a rise in temperature. That is why the contribution of the condensation energy to the enthalpy, owing to the decrease in the τ coefficient (and, to a lesser degree, to the condensation energy itself) should decrease. As a result, instead of the ordinary small decrease of enthalpy with temperature rise, its magnitude should increase. As an example, Table 8.2 presents calculated and experimental data for the decomposition of CaCO3 . Equation 8.4 has been used in estimations of the coefficient τ . As can be seen from the table, the temperature rise from 900 to 1,200 K is accompanied by an increase in the magnitude of ∆r HT◦ by about 50 kJ mol−1 , instead of the expected decrease of 10 kJ mol−1 , which considerably exceeds the measurement error. Theoretical results are confirmed quite well by experiments. (Additional results for the decompositions of CaCO3 and SrCO3 , supporting this effect, are presented in Sect. 16.14.) It is difficult to overestimate the significance of this effect. First of all, it provides a convincing proof of the fact of condensation energy transfer to the reactant and supports the validity of the calculations of reaction enthalpies for compounds decomposing with the formation of a low-volatility product. Secondly, it points to the need to revise the main causes of systematic underestimation of results obtained in measurements with the second-law and Arrhenius plot methods. In addition to self-cooling, the condensation effect is also among these causes. Moreover, while the self-cooling effect can be eliminated or reduced by choosing the appropriate experimental conditions, the condensation effect cannot, in principle, be eliminated. An increase of the true value of ∆r HT◦ with temperature decreases the slope of the ln KP = f(1/T ) plot and, therefore, the value of the E parameter measured by the second-law and Arrhenius plot methods. As an example, a contribution of the condensation effect into the E parameter for the decomposition of CaCO3 can be considered. The averaged experimental magnitudes of KP at 970 and 1,215 K (see Sect. 16.14), measured in the isobaric mode, in atmospheric air (0.04% CO2 ) and in pure CO2 , are equal to 3 × 10−11 Table 8.2 Calculated and experimental values of the enthalpy change for the decomposition of CaCO3 T (K) ∆v HT◦ −∆c HT◦ P∞ c1 a τ1 ∆r HT◦ (kJ mol−1 ) (kJ mol−1 ) (kJ mol−1 ) (bar) Theory Expt 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 a

840.6 837.3 834.0 830.0

669.5 667.8 666.3 664.7

6.7E−31 5.1E−27 7.5E−24 3.2E−21

c1 = log(Peqp /P∞ ), where Peqp = 2 × 10−8 bar

22.5 18.6 15.4 12.8

0.516 0.487 0.458 0.430

495 512 529 544

487 500 515 535

± ± ± ±

5 7 1 5

116


and 1.2 × 10−7 bar2 , respectively. The value of E parameter measured by the second-law method should be equal to 332 kJ mol−1 . This value is 35–40% lower than the ∆r HT◦ magnitudes, measured at the same temperatures by the third-law method (Table 8.2). The difference obtained is probably somewhat overestimated due to an uncertainty of the measured values KP . However, the decisive contribution of the condensation effect in the systematic underestimation of E parameters, measured by the second-law and Arrhenius plot methods, is indisputable. Some additional results confirming this effect (for the decomposition of SrCO3 ) are presented in Sect. 16.14.

8.3

Reactant Melting and Decomposition Enthalpy

Silver and Cadmium Nitrates Studies of the decomposition rates for solid and liquid (melted) reactants are of the top most importance for verification of the CDV mechanism. Measurements of such kind have been recently described by L’vov and Ugolkov [11] for the decompositions of the anhydrous nitrates of silver and cadmium. Melting temperatures for these salts are equal to 483 and 633 K, respectively. The final results of these experiments (with an allowance for some corrections mentioned in Sect. 16.11) are presented in Table 8.3. As can be seen from Table 8.3, regardless of the difference in temperatures, the decomposition rates for AgNO3 and Cd(NO3 )2 in the solid and molten states appear to be about the same. (With a temperature difference of 100 K, a rate increase by 2–3 orders of magnitude could be expected.) For some reason the decompositions of the solid reactants slow down after their melting. The magnitude of the molar enthalpy (parameter E) rises by about 20 kJ mol−1 . These observations are contradictory to the popular opinion that melting should result in faster decomposition of the reactant [12]. This opinion is based on the following reasonable assumptions: “Reasons why reactions of solids may proceed more rapidly in a molten zone than within a crystalline reactant, include: (i) relaxation of the regular stabilizing intercrystalline forces; (ii) establishment of a favorable configuration for chemical change may be possible due to mobility in a liquid but inhibited within a rigid crystal structure, and (iii) the influences of intermediates and impurities may be greater (or different) in a molten phase” [12].

Table 8.3 Kinetic parameters for the decomposition of solid and melted nitrates in a vacuum [11] Nitrate AgNO3 (s) AgNO3 (l) Cd(NO3 )2 (s) Cd(NO3 )2 (l)

T (K) 472 574 563 660

Primary Products Ag(g)↓ + NO2 + 1/2O2 Ag(g) + NO2 + 1/2O2 CdO(g)↓ + 2NO2 + O CdO(g) + 2NO2 + O

J(kg m−2 s−1 ) 3E−7 8E−7 7E−6 9E−6

E(kJ mol−1 ) 146.6 165.5 177.5 198.1

± ± ± ±

0.4 0.8 1.0 0.8


References

117

These arguments, although seeming reasonable, are too general and not yet supported by experiments. Meanwhile, the decelerating influence of melting has a very simple explanation and can be interpreted quantitatively within the framework of the CDV mechanism. A partial transfer of condensation energy (τ a∆c HT◦ ) to a solid reactant during the decomposition process causes the decrease of the reaction enthalpy and the increase of the rate. In the absence of such a zone and such a transfer for a molten reactant τ = 0, and the reaction enthalpy is higher than that for a solid reactant. As will be shown in Sect. 16.11, the experimental results for both nitrates agree with the theoretical calculations. Calcium Nitrate The results of similar experiments for Ca(NO3 )2 by Ettarh and Galwey [13] are also in a full agreement with the above approach. The melting point for Ca(NO3 )2 is 836 K. The E parameters measured in [13] for solid (774–820 K) and melted nitrate (229 ± 10 and 315 ± 20 kJ mol−1 ), agree with thermochemical calculations of the molar enthalpy (234 and 318 kJ mol−1 ) for the corresponding reactions: Ca(NO3 )2 (s) ↔ CaO(g)↓ + 2NO2 + O Ca(NO3 )2 (l) ↔ CaO(g) + 2NO2 + O

(8.7) (8.8)

The calculated value, τ a∆c HT◦ /ν = 84 kJ mol−1 [11], practically coincides with the experimentally obtained difference in parameters E for melted and solid nitrates, i.e., to 86 kJ mol−1 . Thus, the decelerating influence of melting on the rate of reactant decomposition is in complete agreement with the CDV mechanism. It is doubtful that any other explanation of this unusual effect can be found within the framework of commonly accepted views.

References 1. L’vov BV (1991) Evaporation, thermal dissociation, carbothermal reduction and thermal decomposition of substances. A general approach to the theoretical calculation of kinetics. XXVII CSI, Bergen, Norway. Book of Abstracts A-5.2 2. L’vov BV (1998) Thermochim Acta 315:145–157 3. L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2004) Thermochim Acta 411:73–79 4. L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2004) Thermochim Acta 413:7–15 5. L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2003) Thermochim Acta 401:139–147 6. L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2003) J Therm Anal Cal 74:697–708 7. L’vov BV (2004) Thermochim Acta 424:183–189 8. Darroudi T, Searcy AW (1981) J Phys Chem 85:3971–3974 9. Powell EK, Searcy AW (1978) J Am Ceram Soc 61:216–221 10. Gordon RS, Kingery WD (1967) J Am Ceram Soc 50:8–14 11. L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2004) Thermochim Acta 424:7–13 12. Galwey AK, Brown ME (1999) Thermal decomposition of ionic solids. Elsevier, Amsterdam 13. Ettarh C, Galwey AK (1996) Thermochim Acta 288:203–219

Chapter 9

Thermochemical Analysis of the Composition of the Primary Products Introduction Starting in 1981 [1], L’vov and his colleagues tried to interpret the experimental parameter E in the Arrhenius equation as the molar enthalpy, ∆r HT◦ /ν, of the desired decomposition reaction. However, it did not affect the traditional interpretation of the parameter E. One of the potential reasons for mistrust of this approach could be due to the unreliability of E values measured by the traditional Arrhenius plot method. As an illustration, a comment by Vyazovkin [2] can be quoted: “The comparison of theoretical values of the activation energy with the experimental ones may itself present a considerable challenge as the reported values tend to be widely different.” With the beginning of application of the third-law method in 2002, the situation has been significantly improved. As a rule, the measurement error for the parameter E is lower than 2–3 kJ mol−1 . Approximately the same error applies to theoretical calculations of the molar enthalpy, ∆r HT◦ /ν. To date, reliable data on E parameters have been accumulated for several classes of substances [3–14]. Most of them (for oxides, nitrides, hydroxides, nitrates, sulfates, and carbonates) have been obtained by L’vov and his colleagues (see Part III). For other reactants (P, As, Sb, azides, higher oxides, sulfides, selenides, ZnTe, and Be3 N2 ) the primary experimental data reported in the literature (Part III) were used for calculations of the E parameter by the third-law method. Method In accordance with the general concept of the approach, based on the CDV mechanism, the goal of thermochemical analysis is to find out the composition of the primary decomposition products, for which the magnitude of the reaction molar enthalpy is taken to be the E value. The fundamental difference between the commonly accepted approach and the thermochemical approach is illustrated schematically in Fig. 9.1. For the decompositions of solid substances to gaseous products only, the desired parameters are the chemical form and relative contents of different gaseous products. For decompositions to both solid and gaseous products, the main difference from the equilibrium composition is due to the congruent dissociative evaporation of the reactant. For example, for hydroxides and carbonates the only difference is in the decomposition of these compounds to gaseous oxides and in their subsequent condensation. The corresponding gaseous products (H2 O and CO2 ) are in their equilibrium form. For some reactants, the difference from the equilibrium composition may additionally manifest itself in a different chemical form and/or in the content of some gaseous components. For example, as is shown below, the decomposition of 119

120

9 Thermochemical Analysis of the Composition of the Primary Products

Fig. 9.1 Basic distinction between the standard and thermochemical approaches to studying decomposition mechanisms

some sulfates and nitrates proceeds until the dissociation of these compounds to atomic oxygen (instead of the equilibrium O2 ). As an illustration, Table 9.1 presents data for the comparison of experimentally obtained magnitudes of molar enthalpies for AlN, measured by means of the third-law method, with the results of thermochemical calculations of these magnitudes for the similar reactions (having close ∆r HT◦ /ν values). The relative content of atomic and molecular nitrogen (N and N2 ) was used as a varying parameter. Calculations via the third-law method have been carried out in accordance with Eqs. 3.19 and 3.20. As can be seen from the table, the equality of the experimental and calculated magnitudes of ∆r HT◦ /ν is best fulfilled for the reaction: AlN ↔ Al(g) + 0.42N + 0.29N2 . The variation of the stoichiometric coefficient ν by 0.01 causes a noticeable discrepancy in ∆r HT◦ /ν magnitudes, which is greater than the calculation error (< 1 kJ mol−1 ). Final Results of Analysis All the available data are collected in Tables 9.2 and 9.3. Table 9.2 contains the corresponding thermodynamic and kinetic data for 21 reactants, decomposing to gaseous products only, while Table 9.3 Table 9.1 Effect of the reaction stoichiometry on the experimental and calculated values of the molar enthalpy [14] Deduced Reaction AlN ↔ Al(g) + 0.5N2 AlN ↔ Al(g) + 0.40N + 0.30N2 AlN ↔ Al(g) + 0.42N + 0.29N2 AlN ↔ Al(g) + 0.44N + 0.28N2 AlN ↔ Al(g) + N a At

ν

∆ST◦ /ν (J mol−1 K−1 )

1.5 1.70 1.71 1.72 2.0

151.2 149.5 149.4 149.3 146.7

Peqp = 5.1 × 10−7 bar and T = 1, 785 K

∆r HT◦ /ν (kJ mol−1 ) Third-lawa Deduced 488.3 489.1 488.9 488.8 479.3

423.1 486.1 488.9 491.6 557.1

1 2 2 2 2 2 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.71 1.71 1.66 4.76 4.76 5.9 2.93 2.86 2.5 4

2P(red) ↔ P2 6As ↔ As4 + As2 6Sb ↔ Sb4 + Sb2 SnO2 ↔ SnO + O HgO ↔ Hg + O ZnO ↔ Zn + O CdS ↔ Cd + 1/2 S2 CdSe ↔ Cd + 1/2 Se2 ZnS ↔ Zn + 1/2 S2 ZnSe ↔ Zn + 1/2 Se2 ZnTe ↔ Zn + 1/2 Te2 AlN ↔ Al + 0.42N + 0.29N2 GaN ↔ Ga + 0.42N + 0.29N2 InN ↔ In + 0.32N + 0.34N2 Be3 N2 ↔ 3Be + 1.52N + 0.24N2 Mg3 N2 ↔ 3Mg + 1.52N + 0.24N2 Si3 N4 ↔ 3Si + 1.8N + 1.1N2 NaN3 → Na + 0.86N + 1.07N2 KN3 ↔ K(g) + 0.73N + 1.135N2 AgNO3 (l) ↔ Ag + NO2 + 1/2 O2 Cd(NO3 )2 (l) ↔ CdO + 2NO2 + O 600 550 650 1,239 681 1,400 1,000 1,000 1,108 1,000 900 1,785 1,264 1,015 1,600 1,200 1,700 603 524 574 660

T (K) 162.3 157.3 152.9 160.7 128.8 133.3 122.2 119.7 133.2 125.0 117.3 149.3 144.4 138.7 135.0 130.1 155.3 134.3 134.6 128.5 152.5

∆ST◦ /ν (J mol−1 K−1 ) 175 164 215 416 201 363 220 213 263 251 214 489 363 308 486 337 501 168 152 168 204

∆r HT◦ /ν (kJ mol−1 ) 192 189 214 413 188 373 218 210 255 239 214 490 362 308 479 337 503 168 152 166 198

191 190 219 412 193 377 232 226 258 250 231 466 351 305 481 344 470 169 153 170 203

218 180–183 207 351b 162–241 180–428 210b 234b 258–266b 294b 246b 542 305 336 428 238 480 144–197 130–205 167–174 186

E (kJ mol−1 ) Third-lawa Second-law

a Left-hand

value corresponds to ∆ST◦ /ν listed in this table, and right-hand value, to the average value ∆ST◦ /ν: 136 or 160 J mol−1 K−1 b Our estimation

ν

Thermochemical parameters for the decompositions of reactants to gaseous products

Deduced Reaction

Table 9.2

9 Thermochemical Analysis of the Composition of the Primary Products 121

669.4900 566.9900 406.01,100 388.0300

1.5 1,800 808.21,800 5.18 520 827.2300 4 780 1139.1780 2 400 796.9400 2 535 710.4500 2 570 778.3600 2 590 706.6600 2 610 556.1600 2 400 508.4300 2 385 400.8300 2.5 470 430.7470 4 560 841.9600 3 1,006 1262.61,000 3 1,400 1237.31,400 2 670 728.1700 2 810 815.3800 2 2 2 2

BN ↔ B(g)↓ + 1/2 N2 Pb(N3 )2 ↔ Pb(g)↓ + 2.36N + 1.82N2 Pb3 O4 ↔ 3PbO(g)↓ + O Be(OH)2 ↔ BeO(g)↓ + H2 O Mg(OH)2 ↔ MgO(g)↓ + H2 O Ca(OH)2 ↔ CaO(g)↓ + H2 O Sr(OH)2 ↔ SrO(g)↓ + H2 O Ba(OH)2 ↔ BaO(g)↓ + H2 O Zn(OH)2 ↔ ZnO(g)↓ + H2 O Cd(OH)2 ↔ CdO(g)↓ + H2 O AgNO3 ↔ Ag(g)↓ + NO2 + 1/2 O2 Cd(NO3 )2 ↔ CdO(g)↓ + 2NO2 + O MgSO4 ↔ MgO(g)↓ + SO2 + O BaSO4 ↔ BaO(g) + SO2 + O MgCO3 ↔ MgO(g)↓ + CO2 1/ CaMg(CO ) ↔ 1/ CaO(g) 3 2 ↓ 2 2 +1/2 MgO(g)↓ + CO2 CaCO3 ↔ CaO(g)↓ + CO2 SrCO3 ↔ SrO(g)↓ + CO2 BaCO3 ↔ BaO(g)↓ + CO2 Li2 SO4 · H2 O ↔ Li2 SO4 (g)↓ + H2 O 0.403 0.256 0.240 0.602

0.047 0.298 0.178 0.672 0.600 0.578 0.544 0.472 0.579 0.515 0.446 0.422 0.435 0 0.496 0.518

τ1

157.3900 161.1900 137.61,200 175.9300

154.71,800 138.2300 150.8800 169.0400 163.9500 152.6600 151.3600 140.3600 168.2300 164.4300 142.8470 161.9600 171.31,000 152.71,400 174.3700 164.5800 285 330 274 106

521 149 248 149 166 194 196 180 122 113 122 175 329 412 208 239 250 284 304 96

529 152 220 130 171 178 186 178 125 127 147 178 334 421 219 254

252 283 328 91

495 151 227 126 169 182 191 190 122 125 142 177 323 431 209 250

205 279 226 86

177 312–343 384 176 192

329 125–159 188b 115 126–134 145–174 126 63 95 95–116

∆ST◦ /ν ∆r HT◦ /ν E (kJ mol−1 ) −1 −1 −1 (J mol K ) (kJ mol ) Third-lawa Second-law

value corresponds to ∆ST◦ /ν listed in this table, and right-hand value, to the average values of ∆ST◦ /ν: 136 or 160 J mol−1 K−1 estimation

a Left-hand

b Our

910 840.6900 910 805.6900 1,080 645.21,100 300 446.6300

560.21,800 193.8500 833.7800 743.4400 632.2500 674.1600 579.3600 415.5600 455.4300 340.1300 283.9500 335.5600 631.31,000 399.51,400 630.9700 650.9800

ν

T ∆v HT◦ −∆c HT◦ −1 (K) (kJ mol ) (kJ mol−1 )

Thermochemical parameters for the decomposition of reactants to solid and gaseous products

Deduced Reaction

Table 9.3

122 9 Thermochemical Analysis of the Composition of the Primary Products

9 Thermochemical Analysis of the Composition of the Primary Products

123

600 y = 0.9905x + 1.4774 r2 = 0.9831

500

-1 E (kJ mol )

400

300

200

100

0 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

∆rH 8/ ν (kJ mol-1) Fig. 9.2 Correlation between the experimental values of the E parameter measured by the third-law method and the calculated values of the molar enthalpy ∆r HT◦ /ν (precise calculations)

contains the data for 20 reactants decomposing to both solid and gaseous products. (The bibliography for the experimental results listed in these tables is given in Chapter 16.) The results presented in [3–14] have been corrected for refinements of the calculation scheme (see Part III). The transfer coefficient τ1 , included in Table 9.3 was calculated using Eq. 8.3. The E parameters for all reactants were calculated by the third-law method using two schemes: the precise scheme (using the ∆r ST◦ /ν magnitudes, given in the table) and the approximate scheme (using averaged magnitudes of ∆r ST◦ /ν: 136 or 160 J mol−1 K−1 ). The correlation between the experimentally obtained magnitudes E calculated by the third-law method and magnitudes of the molar enthalpy, ∆r HT◦ /ν, for assumed reactions is presented in Fig. 9.2 for the precise calculation and in Fig. 9.3 for the approximate calculation. The difference between the precise and approximate calculation schemes for the parameter E is insignificant. The precise scheme gives a higher linear correlation coefficient (0.99 instead of 0.95 for the approximate calculation). The average values of the relative standard deviations of the ratio (∆r HT◦ /ν)/E from 1 are 7.0% and 7.6%, respectively.

124

9 Thermochemical Analysis of the Composition of the Primary Products 600 y = 0.9463x + 12.8 r2 = 0.9757

500

-1 E (kJ mol )

400

300

200

100

0 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

-1

∆rH 8/ ν (kJ mol ) Fig. 9.3 Correlation between the experimental values of the E parameter measured by the third-law method and the calculated values of the molar enthalpy ∆r HT◦ /ν (approximate calculations)

References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

L’vov BV, Ryabchuk GN (1981) Zh Analit Khim 36:2085–2096 (in Russian) Vyazovkin S (2002) Anal Chem 74:2749–2762 L’vov BV (2002) Thermochim Acta 389:199–211 L’vov BV, Polzik LK, Ugolkov VL (2002) Thermochim Acta 390:5–19 L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2003) Thermochim Acta 401:139–147 L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2004) Thermochim Acta 409:13–18 L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2004) Thermochim Acta 410:47–55 L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2004) Thermochim Acta 411:73–79 L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL Grekov FF (2004) Thermochim Acta 411:187–193 L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2004) Thermochim Acta 413:7–15 L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2004) Thermochim Acta 424:7–13 L’vov BV (2004) Thermochim Acta 424:183–189 L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2005) Russian J Appl Chem 78:379–385 L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2005) Thermochim Acta 438:1–8

Chapter 10

Effect of the Reactant Crystal Structure on the Composition of the Primary Decomposition Products As can be seen from Tables 9.2 and 9.3, for many reactants the composition of the primary gaseous products (oxygen and nitrogen) differs from the equilibrium composition. These products are released, completely or partially, in the form of free atoms. This phenomenon is of remarkable theoretical and practical interest. Some general features of this phenomenon, related to the decompositions of oxides, nitrides and, to some extent, of phosphorus, arsenic, and antimony, are described below.

10.1

Oxides

Historical Background The fact that some oxides decompose with the formation in the primary stage of free atomic oxygen is well known. Over 40 years ago Harano [1] showed (using the colour change of MoO3 oxide from pale yellow to light blue), that during the decomposition of ZnO, HgO, CuO, and PtO2 in vacuum, oxygen is partially released in the form of atoms. Later [2, 3] a similar effect was discovered for the decomposition of lead oxide (Pb3 O4 ). These studies stimulated research on the decomposition kinetics of Group IIB oxides (ZnO, CdO, and HgO) by L’vov and Ugolkov [4] towards identification of the actual content of O and O2 in the primary products. For the sake of completeness, cadmium oxide was included in this study, although the equilibrium composition of the products (Cd and O2 ) formed during its decomposition had been proved unambiguously [5]. Good agreement of the E parameters and the molar enthalpies for the decomposition of ZnO and HgO to atomic oxygen (Table 9.2), as well as the absence of any decelerating effect of O2 -additives on their decomposition, led to the conclusion that the dissociative evaporation of both oxides proceeds with the formation of atomic oxygen. Analysis The first attempt to explain the difference in the decomposition mechanisms for CdO, on the one hand, and for ZnO and HgO, on the other, undertaken in [4], was based on an analysis of interatomic spacings O–O in the corresponding crystals. Their estimation was carried out using the software (PowderCell Program), developed by Kraus and Nolze [6], and tables [7]. An analysis showed that the minimum spacing in the series ZnO, CdO, and HgO varies as 2.60, 3.34, and 3.50 ˚ A. This is considerably larger than the 125

126

10 Effect of the Reactant Crystal Structure

˚). This means that differences interatomic distance in the O2 molecule (1.21 A in the decomposition mechanisms are due to other factors. To study this problem in more detail, L’vov et al. [4] collected all the available data on the evaporation mechanisms for 23 different oxides (and two sulfates) and compared them with the crystal structures of these substances. When these compounds were divided into two groups in accordance with the form of the oxygen in the primary decomposition products, clear-cut differences in their crystal structures were revealed (Table 10.1). All the oxides decomposing with the release of molecular oxygen (excluding PbO) belong to the cubic (I) system. The decompositions of all the other compounds having a system other than cubic (II, III, IIIa, IV, and V) results in the formation of atomic oxygen. The release of molecular oxygen in the decomposition of PbO may be due to it having the shortest O–O interatomic spacing (1.98 ˚ A) compared to all the other oxides. The obvious deduction is that there is an interrelation between these differences and the structural symmetry. One could assume that the crucial role belongs here to the local symmetry in the positions of the O-atoms. Fragments

Table 10.1 sulfates Oxide Li2 O Cu2 O Ag2 O MgO CaO SrO CdO MnO FeO CoO NiO PbO CaO2 SrO2 BaO2 GeO2 SnO2 Pb3 O4 SiO2 PtO2 ZnO HgO MgSO4 BaSO4 CuO a I:

The crystal structures and evaporation mechanisms for some oxides and Systema

Space Group

Minimum O–O Distance (˚ A)

I I I I I I I I I I I II II II II II II II III IIIa III IV IV IV V

225 224 224 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 129 139 139 139 136 136 135 182 164 186 62 63 62 15

2.31 3.68; 4.25 4.09; 4.72 2.98 3.39 3.63 3.34 3.14 3.06 3.01 2.95 1.98 4.62 3.55 5.12 2.86 3.19 3.28 2.91 2.74 2.60 3.50 2.47 2.44 2.62

Primary Product O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O2 O O O O O O O O O O O O O

cubic; II: tetragonal; III: hexagonal; IIIa: trigonal; IV: rhombic; and V: monoclinic

10.2 Nitrides

127

CdO

ZnO

HgO

Fig. 10.1 Fragments of a crystal structure for CdO, ZnO, and HgO. Large and small circles represent, respectively, atoms of metals and oxygen

of the structure shown in Fig. 10.1 illustrate the difference in the symmetry of the O-atoms in the crystal structures of CdO, ZnO, and HgO. For oxides with higher symmetry and a close to isotropic neighbourhood, the dissociative evaporation results in the release of molecules. Oxygen atoms residing in low-symmetry positions leave their sites without recombination. Presumably, some differences exist in the electronic structure of these atoms that are responsible for the recombination mechanism. These preliminary conclusions are undoubtedly worthy of further investigation and comparison with decomposition peculiarities of other compounds.

10.2

Nitrides

Historical Background A regularity fairly close to the one considered above has been discovered in studies of the decompositions of metal nitrides [8–12]. The analysis of the stoichiometry of the primary products formed during the decompositions of nitrides was based on early works [8–11] on the kinetic data available in the literature, in particular, on the results of the determination of vaporization coefficients. The reliability of these data, especially for Langmuir

128


measurements, was not high. That is why the proportion of atomic and molecular nitrogen in the decomposition products in [8–11] varied within a factor of 1.5. The goal of the latter work [12] relating to this topic was to measure the free-surface evaporation enthalpy for the group of nitrides (Mg3 N2 , BN, AlN, GaN, InN, and Si3 N4 ) using the third-law method. It was anticipated that, similarly to many other cases, this should raise the accuracy and precision of experimental data considerably and, thus, the reliability of the final conclusions. Analysis From comparison of the data obtained with the results of thermodynamic calculations (e.g., see Table 9.1 for AlN) the reactions best corresponding to the decomposition kinetics have been found. The final results of this research, including the analysis of data available in the literature [13–19], with due account for some corrections specified in Sect. 16.6, are summarized in Table 10.2. The following conclusions can be drawn from their analysis. •

•

•

First of all, considerable differences in decomposition schemes for nitrides of cubic and hexagonal modifications are apparent. All cubic nitrides decompose with the release of molecular nitrogen only, while all hexagonal nitrides form atomic nitrogen in amounts from 32% to 76%. The first part of this regularity is in a full conformity with the decomposition mechanism for oxides. However, the decompositions of hexagonal nitrides are somewhat different. Recall that the decompositions of all oxides having a system other than cubic, proceeds with the release of oxygen in the form of free atoms only, rather than in the form of an O/O2 mixture. No correlation was observed between the reaction stoichiometry and the minimum interatomic spacing N–N, which was determined in the same way as for oxides, using the software [6] and tables [7]. Moreover, the minimum N–N spacing for AlN and GaN (3.1 ˚ A) is shorter than that for InN (3.5 ˚ A), regardless of the higher content of free N-atoms in the primary decomposition products for the first two nitrides (42% instead of 32% for InN). Therefore, the commonly used explanation of a low vaporization coefficient for some nitrides [15], based on the difference of the interatomic distance A) from the much longer spacings (2.5–3.5 ˚ A) for a free molecule N2 (1.07 ˚ between the closest nitrogen atoms in the crystal lattices of nitrides, is incorrect. For two pairs of nitrides of a similar composition (Be3 N2 /Mg3 N2 and AlN/GaN) the stoichiometry of the products turns out to be completely identical, regardless of considerable differences in the decomposition temperatures (1,600/1,200 K and 1,800/1,300 K). Apparently, the decomposition stoichiometry does not depend on temperature. However, due to unknown reasons, the stoichiometry of the decomposition of InN differs noticeably from that of AlN and GaN.

45

α, β-Si3 N4 ↔ 3Si(g) + 1.8N + 1.1N2

Pressed pellet Pressed pellet Pellet Pressed pellet Pellet MOCVD film Pressed pellet Pellet Polycrystal Pellet Powder Pellet Pressed pellet Pellet MOCVD film MBE film

Sampleb

I I

I

III

III

III

III

III IIIc

216 216

216

159; 176

186

186

186

194 194

3.09 3.09

2.56

2.82; 2.79

3.51

3.17

3.07

2.84 3.29

1,600 1,200 1,231 1,800 1,785 1,300 1,300 1,264 1,100 1,015 1,713 1,700 1,800 1,800 1,300 900

System Space N-N Minimum T Group Distance (˚ A) (K)

414 261

329d

480d

336

379 305

428 238 350 494d

486 302 334 502 490 361 350 362 305 308 480 502 541 527 397 305

479 336 336 489 489 363 363 363 307 308 503 503 539 539 427 284

Second Third Deduced Law Law

∆r HT◦ /ν(kJ mol−1 )

[13] [14] [12] [15] [12] [16] [17] [12] [16] [12] [18] [12] [15] [12] [16] [19]

Ref.

b

a

Content of atomic nitrogen species in the reaction Ma Nb+2c ↔ aM(g) + bN + cN2 MOCVD: metal organic chemical vapor deposition; MBE: molecule beam epitaxy c Polymorphous transition from the cubic (α) to hexagonal (β) structure for Mg N at 823 K has been observed in [20] and 3 2 supported in [21] d Calculated in this work on the basis of experimental data reported in original publications

0 0

32

InN ↔ In(g) + 0.32N + 0.34N2

c-AlN ↔ Al(g) + 0.5N2 c-GaN ↔ Ga(g) + 0.5N2

42

h-GaN ↔ Ga(g) + 0.42N + 0.29N2

0

42

h-AlN ↔ Al(g) + 0.42N + 0.29N2

c-BN ↔ B(g)↓ + 0.5N2

75 75

Be3 N2 ↔ 3Be(g) + 1.5N + 0.25N2 Mg3 N2 ↔ 3Mg(g) + 1.5N + 0.25N2

b/(b + 2c)a (%)

The decomposition mechanisms of nitrides in a vacuum vs their crystal structures [21]

Deduced Reaction

Table 10.2

10.2 Nitrides 129

130

10.3


Phosphorous, Arsenic, and Antimony

Historical Background An extremely low evaporation rate for red phosphorus, as compared to that for white phosphorus, was reported for the first time by Melville and Gray in 1936 [21]. The vapour pressure measured by the Langmuir method at 578 K was found to be equal to 1.3 × 10−9 bar [22]. Melville and Gray [21] supposed that this was due to the absence of structural units of the P4 -type for red phosphorus and, as a result, it evaporated in the form of P2 molecules. Research into this anomaly was continued later by Brewer and Kane [23], who concluded that, even if evaporation of red phosphorus in the form of P2 molecules was assumed, the vaporization coefficient appears to be lower than 1. In these studies [22, 23] a low evaporation rate for arsenic and antimony had been noted as well. Rosenblatt et al. [24] measured the molar enthalpies and entropies of free-surface evaporation for arsenic and antimony and confirmed the previous results. The low vaporization coefficient, according to Rosenblatt et al. [24], is, similarly to phosphorus, due to the absence of M4 fragments in the crystal structure of these metals and the difficulty of their formation via the variation of initial interatomic spacings and angles. None of the researchers mentioned above tried to compare the experimentally obtained magnitudes of the thermochemical parameters with calculations to identify the primary evaporation products. Analysis Such an attempt was undertaken by L’vov and Novichikhin [8] in 1997. The results of this comparison are presented in Table 10.3. The discrepancy in ∆r HT◦ magnitudes for red phosphorus is most probably due to an overestimation of the experimentally obtained magnitude (218 kJ mol−1 ), reported in [23]. Estimation of the ∆r HT◦ magnitude by the third-law method basing on the data obtained in [21], gives the magnitude 192–212 kJ mol−1 (see Sect. 16.1). As can be seen, all of the low evaporation rates can be explained by a partial (for As and Sb) and complete (for P) evaporation of these elements in the form of binary molecules (M2 ) instead of the more thermodynamically stable M4 molecules. Table 10.3 The crystal structures and the mechanisms of vaporization of phosphorus, arsenic and antimony Deduced Reaction

Systema

T (K)

4P(white) ↔ P4 2P(red) ↔ P2 6As ↔ As4 + As2 6Sb ↔ Sb4 + Sb2

I VI IIIa IIIa

298 600 550 650

a

I: cubic; VI: triclinic; and IIIa: trigonal

∆r HT◦ (kJ mol−1 ) Expt Deduced [9] 59 218 180; 183 207

59 175 177 214

Ref. [22] [23, 25] [23–25] [24]


References

131

Comparison of the decomposition products with the crystal structures of the corresponding substances shows that the equilibrium composition of products is observed only for white phosphorus, having the cubic structure. For elements with structures other than cubic, evaporation occurs with the formation (partial or complete) of binary molecules. Thus, the distinctive feature of crystals with cubic structure to sublime with the formation of equilibrium primary products manifests itself for all the substances considered above: oxides, nitrides and white phosphorus.

References 1. Harano Y (1961) Nippon Kagaku Zasshi 82:152–155 2. Malinin GV, Tolmachev YuM, Yadrintsev VB (1968) Zh Neorg Khim 13:1746–1749 (in Russian) 3. Malinin GV, Tolmachev YuM, Brach BYa (1972) Vestnik LGU 4:126–129 (in Russian) 4. L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL, Grekov FF (2004) Thermochim Acta 411:187–193 5. Gilbert IGF, Kitchener JA (1956) J Chem Soc 3919–3921 6. Kraus W, Nolze G (1996) J Appl Cryst 29:301–303 7. International crystal structure data (1996) Gmelin Institute, Karlsruhe 8. L’vov BV, Novichikhin AV (1997) Thermochim Acta 290:239–251 9. L’vov BV (2001) Thermochim Acta 373:97–124 10. L’vov BV (2002) Thermochim Acta 389:199–211 11. L’vov BV (2004) Thermochim Acta 424:183–189 12. L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2005) Thermochim Acta 438:1–8 13. Hoenig CL, Searcy AW (1967) J Am Ceram Soc 50:460–466 14. Blank BAH, Searcy AW (1968) J Phys Chem 72:2241–2243 15. Dreger LH, Dadape VV, Margrave JL (1962) J Phys Chem 66:1556–1559 16. Ambacher O, Brandt MS, Dimitrov R, et al. (1996) J Vac Sci Technol B 14:3532–3542 17. Munir ZA, Searcy AW (1965) J Chem Phys 42:4223–4228 18. Ryklis EA, Bolgar AS, Fesenko VV (1969) Poroshkovaya Metallurgiya 73:92–96 (in Russian) 19. Brandt O, Yang Hui, Ploog KH (1996) Phys Rev B 54:4432–4435 20. Mitchell DW (1949) Ind Eng Chem 41:2027–2031 21. Melville HW, Gray SC (1936) Trans Faraday Soc 32:271, 1017, 1026 22. Nesmeyanov AnN (1961) Vapour pressure of chemical elements. Akad Nauk SSSR, Moscow (in Russian) 23. Brewer L, Kane JS (1955) J Phys Chem 59:105–109 24. Rosenblatt GM, Lee P-K, Dowell MB (1966) J Chem Phys 45:3454–3455 25. Somorjai GA, Lester JE (1967) Evaporation mechanism of solids. In: Reiss H (ed) Progress in solid state chemistry. Pergamon, Oxford, pp 1–52

Chapter 11

Vaporization Coefficients Definition The vaporization coefficient, αv , is usually defined as the ratio of the actual flow of gaseous decomposition product J to the flow Jmax coming from an effusion cell, in which, it is assumed, decomposition products are in an ideal equilibrium with the reactant. For many substances, as found from comparative Knudsen–Langmuir TG measurements, αv 1, i.e., their free-surface decomposition proceeds much more slowly than would be expected from effusion observations. It is a common practice to explain this discrepancy by a multistage character of the evaporation process, by surface relief peculiarities or by impurities and defects (imperfections) in the reactant lattice. Analysis L’vov and Novichikhin [1] were the first to relate this effect to the difference between the actual decomposition scheme and the supposed scheme of decomposition directly to equilibrium products (as in an effusion cell). Initial gasification of all of the products, including low-volatility components (metals or metal oxides) is assumed, followed by partial or complete release of gaseous products in a chemical form different from the equilibrium composition. The contributions of these factors to the decomposition coefficient are presented separately for reactants decomposing to gaseous products only (Table 11.1) and to gaseous and solid products (Table 11.2). Reactants are listed in order of decreasing coefficient αv . The coefficients were determined from the experimentally obtained magnitudes of the equilibrium pressures Peqp for the primary evaporation products found by means of the third-law method (see Chapter 16), and from theoretically calculated equilibrium pressures Peq for the final (equilibrium) products. Analysis of these data yielded the following conclusions. •

•

•

The variation of αv magnitudes in both cases is extraordinarily wide: from 1 to 10−25 for the first group and from 10−3 to 10−29 , in the second group. If the anomalously low magnitudes of vaporization coefficients for azides and oxalates are excluded, then the average value of αv for the first group of reactants is about 10−3 , while that for the second group is about 10−6 . The anomalously low magnitudes of αv for the azides and the oxalates (10−10 to 10−29 ) are related to exothermic properties of these compounds (they are explosives). However, because their decompositions result in the formation of primary products differing from the equilibrium products, they turn out to be fairly stable around room temperature. A wide variety of materials having αv coefficients equal or very close to 1, should be assigned to the first group of substances, which evaporate to gaseous products only. Besides the solids listed in Table 5.1 (metals, halogenides and ice), which sublime without changes of the chemical form of the

133

Primary Products

SiO + O SnO + O Sb4 + Sb2 GeO + O Al + 0.42N + 0.29N2 Zn(g) + O As4 + As2 3Be + 1.52N + 0.24N2 Ga + 0.42N + 0.29N2 In + 0.32N + 0.34N2 3Si + 1.8N + 1.1N2 P2 3Mg + 1.52N + 0.24N2 Hg + O Na + 0.86N + 1.07N2 K + 0.72N + 1.14N2 Hg + CO + CO2 + O

Peqp 1.1E−07 3.2E−09 9.8E−10 1.5E−07 4.1E−07 6.6E−09 1.6E−07 2.7E−09 9.0E−08 1.5E−09 4.5E−08 2.3E−07 1.3E−08 3.0E−08 2.4E−08 1.1E−08 1E−07

Equilibrium Products SiO + 1/2O2 SnO + 1/2O2 Sb4 GeO + 1/2O2 Al + 1/2N2 Zn + 1/2O2 As4 3Be + N2 Ga + 1/2N2 In + 1/2N2 3Si + 2N2 P4 3Mg + N2 Hg + 1/2O2 Na(l) + 3/2N2 K(l) + 3/2N2 Hg(l) + 2CO2

Peqp and Peq are equilibrium pressure for the primary and eventual products, respectively

1,800 1,287 650 1,323 1,800 1,250 550 1,600 1,300 1,000 1,700 600 1,200 700 600 530 424

a

T (K)

SiO2 SnO2 Sb GeO2 h-AlN ZnO As Be3 N2 h-GaN InN Si3 N4 P (red) Mg3 N2 HgO NaN3 KN3 HgC2 O4

The vaporization coefficients for reactants decomposing into gaseous productsa

Reactant

Table 11.1 2.2E−07 4.9E−07 3.0E−08 2.0E−05 4.1E−05 7.3E−07 9.9E−05 2.7E−06 2.3E−04 6.6E−06 2.5E−05 2.3E−02 1.7E−03 1.9E−01 1.6E+06 6.2E+05 5E+16

Peq (bar)

αv 5E−01 7E−02 3E−02 1E−02 1E−02 9E−03 2E−03 1E−03 4E−04 2E−04 2E−05 1E−05 8E−06 2E−07 2E−14 2E−14 2E−24

134 11 Vaporization Coefficients

T (K)

1,397 600 784 903 750 908 600 1,006 820 600 903 273 273 563 1,285 573

BaSO4 Ba(OH)2 Pb3 O4 BaCO3 Kaolinite SrCO3 Sr(OH)2 MgSO4 CaMg(CO3 )2 Ca(OH)2 CaCO3 CuSO4 · 5H2 O CuSO4 · 5H2 O Cd(NO3 )2 Talc AgNO3 (l)

BaO(g)↓ + SO2 + O BaO(g)↓ + H2 O 3PbO(g)↓ + O BaO(g)↓ + CO2 Al2 O3 (g)↓ + 2SiO2 (g)↓ + 2H2 O SrO(g)↓ + CO2 SrO(g)↓ + H2 O MgO(g)↓ + SO2 + O MgO(g)↓ + CaO(g)↓ + 2CO2 CaO(g)↓ + H2 O CaO(g)↓ + CO2 CuSO4 (g)↓ + 5H2 O CuSO4 (g)↓ + 5H2 O CdO(g)↓ + 2NO2 + O 3MgO(g)↓ + 4SiO2 (g)↓ + H2 O Ag(g) + NO2 + 1/2O2

Primary Products 3.9E−08 6.3E−09 1.7E−07 9E−08 3.8E−08 1E−08 5.7E−09 5.4E−09 4E−08 4.7E−08 3E−08 1.2E−09 1.2E−09 3.9E−08 4.0E−07 5.8E−09

Peqp (bar) BaO(s) + SO2 + 1/2O2 BaO(s) + H2 O 3PbO(s) + 1/2O2 BaO(s) + CO2 Al2 O3 (s) + 2SiO2 (s) + 2H2 O SrO(s) + CO2 SrO(s) + H2 O MgO(s) + SO2 + 1/2O2 MgO(s) + CaO(s) + 2CO2 CaO(s) + H2 O CaO(s) + CO2 CuSO4 (s) + 5H2 O CuSO4 (s) + 5H2 O CdO(s) + 2NO2 + 1/2O2 3MgSiO3 (s) + SiO2 (s) + H2 O Ag(s) + NO2 + 1/2O2

Equilibrium Products

Vaporization coefficients for reactants decomposing into solid and gaseous productsa

Reactant

Table 11.2

2.4E−06 2.8E−06 1.2E−04 1E−04 1E−04 6E−05 1.3E−04 1.7E−04 6E−03 7.2E−03 7E−03 1.0E−03 1.0E−03 4.8E−02 1E−00 3.3E−02

Peq (bar)

αv

(continued)

2E−02 2E−03 1E−03 9E−04 4E−04 1E−04 4E−05 3E−05 7E−06 7E−06 4E−06 1E−06 1E−06 8E−07 4E−07 2E−07

11 Vaporization Coefficients 135

aP

eqp

CdO(g) + 2NO2 + O CdO(g)↓ + H2 O CaSO4 (g)↓ + 2H2 O Li2 SO4 (g)↓ + H2 O MgO(g)↓ + H2 O ZnO(g)↓ + H2 O MgO(g)↓ + CO2 BeO(g)↓ + H2 O Pb(g)↓ + 2CO + 1/2O2 Mn(g)↓ + 2CO + 1/2O2 Ni(g)↓ + CO + CO2 + 1/2O2 Sr(g)↓ + 0.5N + 2.75N2 Ca(g)↓ + 0.5N + 2.75N2 Ba(g)↓ + 0.74N + 2.63N2 Tl(g)↓ + 1.14N + 0.93N2 2Ag(g)↓ + CO + CO2 + 1/2O2 Ag(g) + 1.14N + 0.93N2 Pb(g)↓ + 2.36N + 1.82N2

Primary Products 5.6E−08 1.0E−08 3.9E−10 8.7E−10 4.6E−09 2.5E−08 3E−08 9.3E−09 1E−07 1E−07 1E−07 1.5E−04 1.5E−03 8.1E−06 3.1E−06 1E−07 4.7E−07 7.1E−09

Peqp (bar) CdO(s) + 2NO2 + 1/2O2 CdO(s) + H2 O CaSO4 (s) + 2H2 O Li2 SO4 (s) + H2 O MgO(s) + H2 O ZnO(s) + H2 O MgO(s) + CO2 BeO(s) + H2 O PbO(s) + CO + CO2 MnO(s) + CO + CO2 Ni(s) + 2CO2 Sr(s) + 3N2 Ca(s) + 3N2 Ba(s) + 3N2 Tl(s) + 3/2N2 2Ag(s) + 2CO2 Ag(s) + 3/2N2 Pb(s) + 3N2


and Peq : equilibrium pressure for the primary and eventual products, respectively

657 400 288 300 535 400 686 400 532 651 568 390 350 400 520 363 530 520

T (K)

(continued)

Cd(NO3 )2 (l) Cd(OH)2 CaSO4 · 2H2 O Li2 SO4 · H2 O Mg(OH)2 Zn(OH)2 MgCO3 Be(OH)2 PbC2 O4 MnC2 O4 NiC2 O4 Sr(N3 )2 Ca(N3 )2 Ba(N3 )2 TlN3 Ag2 C2 O4 AgN3 (l) Pb(N3 )2

Reactant

Table 11.2

3.5E−00 8.6E−01 4.0E−02 9.6E−02 9.2E−01 1.6E+01 3E+01 1.20E+01 5E+02 4E+03 2E+05 2.90E+08 5.80E+09 3.90E+07 5.4E+16 1E+17 1.40E+19 3.10E+20

Peq (bar)

αv 2E−08 1E−08 1E−08 9E−09 5E−09 2E−09 1E−09 8E−10 2E−10 3E−11 5E−12 5E−13 3E−13 2E−13 6E−23 1E−24 3E−26 2E−29

136 11 Vaporization Coefficients

11 Vaporization Coefficients

•

137

initial reactant, oxides (Table 10.1), nitrides (Table 10.2), sulfides, selenides, and tellurides (Table 16.15), having cubic crystal structures, belong to the same group. As distinct from the first group, all the substances of the second group, decomposing ultimately to solid and gaseous products, have vaporization coefficients much lower than 1. This is primarily due to the gaseous (nonequilibrium) aggregate state of the main decomposition product. For some reactants (azides, oxalates, nitrates, and sulfates) it may be also caused by the difference of the chemical form of the primary gaseous products from the equilibrium products. The average value of αv , calculated from the results in Tables 11.1 and 11.2 (excluding azides and oxalates) has a magnitude close to 10−5 and characterizes the difference of the actual decomposition rates of substances from the rates calculated for reactants decomposing directly to equilibrium products. (It is difficult to imagine how the world would change if the majority of substances, both natural and synthetic, did decompose to equilibrium products, i.e., 100,000 times faster.)

Misconception and its Interpretation The low magnitudes of the vaporization coefficients for many substances ( 10−6 ) are in conflict with the widespread opinion that the magnitude of αv varies for different compounds within the limits from 1 to 10−6 [2]. This misconception is actually due to the limitations (ultimate capabilities) of the effusion method, which is used for estimations of the maximum decomposition rate or of the equilibrium pressure of the product. The ratio of the equilibrium pressure inside the cell, Peq , to the effusion pressure, Peff , is governed by [3]: seff WC Peq ∼ =1+ Peff s0

(11.1)

where seff and s0 are the areas of the effusion outlet and of the evaporation surface (cross section of the cell), respectively, and WC is the Clausing factor. To measure the Peff magnitude with an error of less than 10%, it is necessary to satisfy the condition: Peq /Peff ≤ 1.1, or αv ≥ 10

seff WC s0

(11.2)

Taking into account that the magnitude of WC varies within the range 0.2–0.4 and seff /s0 > 10−5 [3], one can conclude that αv should be greater than 10−5 to provide a correct measurement of the equilibrium pressure. Otherwise the pressure inside the effusion cell would not reach equilibrium.

138

11 Vaporization Coefficients

References 1. L’vov BV, Novichikhin AV (1997) Thermochim Acta 290:239–251 2. Dettorre JF, Knorr TG, Hall EH (1966) Evaporation processes. In: Powell CF, Oxley JH, Blocher JM (eds) Vapour deposition. Wiley, New York, pp 62–101 3. Nesmeyanov AnN (1961) Vapour pressure of chemical elements. Akad Nauk SSSR, Moscow (in Russian)

Chapter 12

The Kinetic Compensation Effect Definition By definition [1, p.130], “the compensation effect refers to the behaviour pattern in which a rise in Ea (which will decrease the rate of reaction at any particular temperature) is partially or completely offset by an increase in A”. In many cases the variation of these parameters corresponds to the equation: ln A = a + bE (12.1) where a and b are some constants. Once this phenomenon was observed by Zawadski and Bretsznajder [2] in 1935 in their studies of the CaCO3 decomposition at various CO2 pressures, this effect became a subject for numerous research works. However, till now, no theory exists that provides a convincing explanation of its mechanism. Analysis Equation 12.1 is in fact the Arrhenius equation, written in logarithmic form, in which constants a and b correspond to magnitudes lnk and 1/(RT ). That is why the satisfaction of Eq. 12.1 for a set of measurements at close values of rate constants and temperatures signifies the validity of the Arrhenius equation, i.e., it is possible to represent any point in the plane ln k = f [1/(RT )] by a set of interconnected parameters, ln A and E. An alternative description of the compensation effect is the availability of the so-called isokinetic temperature, Tθ , corresponding to the same reaction rate for different sets of ln A and E. The real problem is the interpretation of the physical nature of the Arrhenius parameters and their interrelation under varying experimental conditions. In particular, an explanation needs to be provided for the increase in both of these parameters in the presence of an excess of gaseous product in the reactor. In the framework of traditional representations this problem remains unsolved. In particular, the transition state theory characterizes the A and E parameters as independent parameters. As compared to this approach, the CDV concept has evident advantages. Different Decomposition Modes As follows from the above kinetic equations (Sect. 3.6), the presence of a gaseous product in the reactor should cause variations of the A and E parameters in full conformity with Eq. 12.1. This can be shown using the example of the decomposition of a binary substance into two products in the equimolar and isobaric modes, when one of the products (A) is a low-volatility one. Taking into account Eqs. 3.23–3.30 and the equality of rate constants (ln k e = ln k i ) it can be shown that: ∆r HT◦ ∆r HT◦ ∆ST◦ ∆ST◦ − − = − ln PBext + 2R 2RTθ R RTθ

(12.2) 139

140

12 The Kinetic Compensation Effect

Table 12.1 Isokinetic temperatures corresponding to different (equimolar and isobaric) modes of decomposition under the condition PBext = 1 Torr = 0.0013 bar Reactant

Products

CaCO3 Mg(OH)2 Li2 SO4 · H2 O

CaO(g)↓ + CO2 MgO(g)↓ + H2 O Li2 SO4 (g)↓ + H2 O

∆r HT◦ a (kJ mol−1 )

∆ST◦ (J mol−1 K−1 )

Tθ (K)

498.21,200 351.0600 193.8298

305.01,200 322.9600 350.5298

1,200 810 420

a The condensation energy transfer to the reactant was taken into account in the calculation of the reaction enthalpy (τ = 0.5 for CaCO3 and 0.6 for two other reactants)

(if the difference in the molar masses of the products is neglected) and after rearranging Eq. 12.2: ∆r HT◦ (12.3) Tθ = ◦ ∆ST − 2R ln PBext Equation 12.3 can be used for calculations of isokinetic temperatures corresponding to different decomposition modes. Table 12.1 presents as an example of the calculated results for the decompositions of CaCO3 , Mg(OH)2 , and Li2 SO4 ·H2 O under the condition: PBext = 1 Torr. The experimentally obtained magnitudes of Tθ for CaCO3 (1,244 and 1,250 K [3]) and Li2 SO4 ·H2 O(∼ 400 K [3]) are close to theoretical values (1,200 and 420 K, respectively). Different decomposition modes are probably the most common cause for spreads of the parameters A and E, as well as for the appearance of a kinetic compensation effect. When the primary gaseous products differ from the equilibrium products (being, for instance, in the form of O or N atoms) and when the isobaric mode is practically unattainable (so-called irreversible decomposition), different researchers obtain very similar and reproducible magnitudes of the parameters A and E. This is true, in particular, for the decompositions of the alkali metal permanganates (KMnO4 , RbMnO4 , and CsMnO4 ), for which the parameter E obtained in different works varied within narrow limits from 140 to 170 kJ mol−1 [3]. It may be suggested that, for the above reactants, by analogy with BaSO4 (of the same crystal structure) oxygen is released in the form of free atoms. If this is the case, these reactants can be used as kinetics “standards” insensitive to the surrounding atmosphere (vacuum, inert gas, or air). Other Factors The difference in the decomposition mode is not the only cause of the spread. Some additional factors are listed below. Among these are: (1) differences in the mathematical models used for the initial processing of the experimental data; (2) differences in the kinetic parameters for the periods of induction, acceleration, and deceleration; (3) the self-cooling effect and its dependence upon particle sizes, sample mass, crucible geometry, and surrounding medium (vacuum or the presence of inert gas), and (4) differences in heating rates for non-isothermal methods. Within the framework of the CDV concept, the influences of factors (1) and (4) are excluded and potential differences in kinetic parameters caused by factors (2) and (3) can be theoretically calculated, or at least, estimated, as has been demonstrated in [4, 5].


References

141

On this basis, it is necessary to agree with the Galwey’s remark [6] that “the detection of a compensation effect should no longer be reported as an ‘interesting’ kinetic result but recognized as a demonstration of serious inadequacies in the experimental and/or computational methods used for the data collection and interpretation.”

References 1. Galwey AK, Brown ME (1999) Thermal decomposition of ionic solids. Elsevier, Amsterdam 2. Zawadzki J, Bretsznajder S (1935) Z Elektrochem 41:215–223 3. Galwey AK, Brown ME (1997) Thermochim Acta 300:107–115 4. L’vov BV, Novichikhin AV, Dyakov AO (1998) Thermochim Acta 315:135–143 5. L’vov BV (2000) Thermochim Acta 364:99–109 6. Galwey AK (2004) Thermochim Acta 413:139–183

Chapter 13

Conclusions Confirmation of the CDV Mechanism The most important result following from the analysis of the material presented in Parts I and II of this book is the confirmation of the CDV mechanism, which provides the basis for the thermochemical approach. The major arguments confirming this mechanism are listed in Table 13.1. Some of the arguments result from the effects discovered experimentally, and some are predicted from theory. Among the latter are: the increase of the reaction enthalpy with temperature (for decompositions with formation of a solid product); the deceleration of the decomposition rate during reactant melting, and the peculiarities of the A and E parameters in the isobaric mode of decomposition. Most of these arguments (items 6–13) have a rigorous quantitative character and their correctness is verified by good agreement of experimental and theoretical results. No qualitative and especially quantitative interpretations of these regularities based on any other known approaches are available, and an appearance of an alternative theory capable of explaining all of these features is highly unlikely. Table 13.1 No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Main arguments for the CDV mechanism

Argument

Section

Direct MS observation of the primary products of decomposition Effect of vapour oversaturation of the low-volatility product and the mechanism of formation of germ nuclei Acceleration stage as a result of condensation of the low-volatility product in the reaction interface Nucleus position on the reactant surface Vapour oversaturation and structure of the product (crystal size) Invariance of the E i parameter under the pressure of gaseous product E i /E e = (a + b)/a in the equimolar and isobaric decomposition modes The retardation effect of the gaseous product: Ai ∝ (PB )−b/a Modelling of the Topley–Smith effect Increase of the decomposition enthalpy with T (for reactions with solid product formation) Increase of the decomposition enthalpy with reactant melting E e (expt) = ∆r HT◦ /ν (theory) for a large group of reactants Interpretation of the vaporization coefficient αv

2.3 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.6 5.3; 5.4 5.3–5.5 5.3; 5.4 7.2; 7.3 8.2 8.3 9 11

Contribution of ET AAS and Quadrupole MS A substantial (if not the major) contribution to the development of thermochemical approach, in general, has been made by investigations in the fields of AAS and quadrupole MS (QMS). The corresponding studies, in which new effects have been discovered, are

143

144

13 Conclusions

listed in Table 13.2. This table contains also the studies of their theoretical interpretation that has lead, eventually, to the development of some novel concepts, methods, and mechanisms, considered in this book [1–16]. Table 13.2 Contribution of flame and electrothermal AAS and QMS to the kinetics of solid-state reactions Experimental Background Year Ref. Method/Mechanism Evolved Year Ref. Dissociative vaporization of Al2 O3 aerosol in flames

1966

Constancy of the Tapp /E ratio for different analytes in ET AAS Decrease of the slope of the Arrhenius plots with temperature ET AAS studies of atomization of metal oxides

1975 1976

Observation of Al spikes in graphite furnaces ET QMS observation of low-volatility products ET AAS studies of Pd-modifier action

[1]

[2] [3]

1976

[3]

1981

[7]

1981

[8]

1983 1987 1989 1994

[10] [11] [13] [14]

The Langmuir single-particle vaporization equation was used for the rate calculation Evaluation of the molar entropy and enthalpy values for decomposition reactions Equimolar and isobaric modes of decompositions were proposed Method for the determination of the absolute decomposition rate Gaseous carbide mechanism of oxide reduction by carbon Congruent dissociative vaporization mechanism Mechanism of chemisorption of analytes on Pd modifier

1966

[1]

1978 2002

[4] [5]

1984

[6]

1981

[7]

1982

[9]

1990

[12]

2000

[15] [16]

The gaseous carbide mechanism of oxide reduction by carbon, noted in the table but left out of consideration in this book, is in many ways close to the CDV mechanism. It will suffice to mention that both mechanisms involve gasification of reactants. About 30 articles by L’vov and colleagues published during the period 1981–2000 are devoted to studies of this mechanism (see [17, 18] for a list of these papers). Nevertheless, this mechanism was excluded from consideration owing to the author’s wish to focus on the main subject of this monograph. Basic achievements The proposed thermochemical approach to the kinetics of solid and melt decompositions rested on the CDV mechanism revealed the interconnection of two traditional, but distinct, scientific approaches (after Arrhenius and after Knudsen–Langmuir). Some unusual or mysterious phenomena (including misconceptions), revealed or formed during the more than a one-hundred-year period of studies in these traditional fields, have been interpreted. The most significant achievements are the explanation of the mechanism of the nucleation and growth of nuclei and the interpretation of such effects as localization of the decomposition process, the Topley–Smith effect, the difference between the rates of decomposition under effusion (after Knudsen) and free-surface (after Langmuir) conditions, a decrease in the decomposition rate upon melting of the reactant, differences in the crystalline structure

References

145

of the solid product versus temperature, and the effect of gaseous products and foreign gases on the decomposition rate. Finally, based on the third-law method, a simple and reliable methodology has been suggested, aimed to measure the enthalpies of decompositions with the accuracy, precision and efficiency exceeding considerably the same features for the usual methodology based on the second-law and Arrhenius plot methods. Unresolved Problems Against the background of above listed achievements, there are still some unanswered questions that appear in the course of the research. These include, in particular, the mechanism of condensation energy transfer from a low-volatility product to a reactant, and the influence of the symmetry of the reactant crystal structure on the composition of the gaseous decomposition products. It would be worthwhile to perform a more thorough analysis of the dependence of the τ coefficient and the sizes of the condensate particles on the vapour oversaturation of the low-volatility product, as well as of the relative contributions of the condensation and self-cooling effects to the underestimation of enthalpies determined by the second-law and Arrhenius plot methods. The thermochemical approach to kinetic studies is in the stage of development, as compared to the commonly used approaches. This explains the insufficiency and, in some cases, a rather low reliability of the obtained data to answer the above listed questions and to draw final conclusions on the decomposition mechanisms for certain substances. Independent verification and/or comparative experiments are required to confirm or disprove the results obtained. Information presented in Part III of this book may be helpful for further development of such studies. Part III is devoted to the technique of isothermal thermogravimetry and contains the primary results of kinetic measurements, and their detailed discussion, for a few dozens of substances. Results of these measurements have been partly discussed in a generalized form in Part II.

References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

L’vov BV (1966) Atomic absorption spectral analysis. Nauka, Moscow (in Russian) Johnson DC, Sharp BL, West TS, Dagnall RM (1975) Anal Chem 47:1234–1240 Sturgeon RE, Chakrabarti CL, Langford CH (1976) Anal Chem 48:1792–1807 L’vov BV (1978) Spectrochim Acta B 33:153–193 L’vov BV (2002) Thermochim Acta 389:199–211 L’vov BV, Fernandes GHA (1984) Zh Analit Khim 39:221–231 (in Russian) L’vov BV, Ryabchuk GN (1981) Zh Analit Khim 36:2085–2096 (in Russian) L’vov BV (1981) XII Mendeleev Congress on General and Applied Chemistry Proceedings, Part I. Nauka, Moscow (in Russian), p 286 9. L’vov BV, Savin AS (1982) Zh Analit Khim 37:2116–2124 (in Russian) 10. Sturgeon RE, Mitchell DF, Berman SS (1983) Anal Chem 55:1059–1064 11. Dressler MS, Holcombe JA (1987) Spectrochim Acta B 42:981–994

146

13 Conclusions

12. L’vov BV (1990) Zh Analit Khim 45:2144–2153 (in Russian) 13. Sturgeon RE, Willie SN, Sproule GI, Robinson PT, Berman SS (1989) Spectrochim Acta B 44:667–682) 14. Liang Y-Z, Ni Z-M (1994) Spectrochim Acta B 49:229–241 15. L’vov BV (2000) Spectrochim Acta B 55:1659–1668 16. L’vov BV (2000) Spectrochim Acta B 55: 1913–1919 17. L’vov BV, Vasilevich AA, Dyakov AO, Lam JW, Sturgeon R (1999) J Anal At Spectrosc 14:1019–1024 18. L’vov BV, Dyakov AO, Vasilevich AA, Lam JW, Sturgeon R (2000) J Anal At Spectrosc 15: 115–120


Part III Thermal Decomposition of Individual Substances

Chapter 14

Instruments for Thermogravimetric Measurements Valery L. Ugolkov Physics and Chemistry of Nanosized Systems, Institute of Silicate Chemistry, St. Petersburg 199155, Russia Thermogravimetric analysis (TGA or TG) is one of the most widely used methods of TA. With this method, changes in the sample mass, maintained in a specified atmosphere, can be monitored during heating, cooling, or being kept at a constant temperature. For most reactants, the sample mass decreases as a result of evaporation of the adsorbed or chemically bound water, pyrolysis of organic substances, and decomposition or evaporation of the material. For some samples in some atmospheres, the sample mass increases owing to, e.g., oxidation of metals to oxides or carbonation of oxides. Thermal analysers used for studying thermal decomposition include a highsensitivity balance, a temperature-controlled furnace, a unit for evacuation and control of the atmosphere in the furnace, and a control and data recording system. There are many monographs dealing with the theoretical problems of TA, including TG [1], and providing schematic diagrams and designs of devices [2–4]. Therefore, only a brief description will be given of two models of thermal analysers, STA 429 and STA 449 (Netzsch), used in their experimental studies by L’vov and Ugolkov. The STA 429 thermal analyser has a unit with a mechanical beam balance. The specific feature of this balance is that, as the sample mass changes, a constant position of the crucible is ensured by a special unit consisting of a compensation electromagnet and a beam position sensor. The unit operates as follows. As the sample mass changes, the balance beam starts to deviate from the equilibrium position. The sensor, a ferromagnetic core rigidly coupled with the balance beam, starts to change its position inside a stationary induction coil. The induction current arising in the process is transmitted as a steering command to the power-feed circuit of the electromagnet. The power of the electromagnet is varied, compensating for the shift of the beam balance and returning it to the initial position. With this measurement scheme, the use of electronics makes it possible to maintain a virtually constant position of the crucible in the internal space of the furnace, which, in turn, ensures the constancy of the crucible temperature in the isothermal measurements. The sample mass can vary from 2.5 mg to 2.5 g. The balance is hermetically connected to the lower part of the furnace so as to ensure the free movement of the vertical holding rod with the sample, resting 149

150

14 Instruments for Thermogravimetric Measurements

upon the sample beam, on the one hand, and to reliably separate the internal volume of the furnace from the external atmosphere, on the other hand. The internal cavity of the furnace is confined by a cylindrical corundum protective shield 32 mm in diameter and 270 mm high, separating the silicon carbide furnace heater from the sample and serving to make the internal temperature field of the furnace uniform. From the outside, the heater is protected by a heat-insulating sheath and a metallic housing cooled by a fan. At the maximum furnace temperature of 1,700◦ C, the consumed power is 2 kW. To reduce the heat loss, the lower aperture of the protective cylindrical shield is covered by horizontal corundum heat reflectors. This unit efficiently separates the heated upper part of the furnace from the connection with the balance compartment. The protective shields allow the temperature of the lower part of the furnace to be kept within 100◦ C even at the maximum temperature in the furnace (1,700◦ C). Furthermore, the connection with the balance compartment is cooled with distilled water whose temperature is maintained at 20.0 ± 0.1◦ C by a circulating thermostat. All the mechanical part of the balance, with the beam, set of weights, beam position sensor and compensation electromagnet, is enclosed in a thick-walled metallic chamber, which allows evacuation of the balance and beam cavity (of total volume of about 40 L) to a pressure of 4 × 10−4 bar with a mechanical rotary pump and to 4 × 10−8 bar with an additional diffusion pump. The evacuation can be performed either before starting the heating or during the course of the measurements. The gas distribution system allows the furnace space to be filled with various gases. Both static and dynamic atmospheres can be provided in the furnace, and two gases can be introduced in a preset ratio. The STA 449 thermal analyser uses a Sartorius piezoelectric analytical balance unit. A specific feature of this balance is its high sensitivity, with the above-described principle of “stationary balance” preserved. The sample mass is up to 5 g. The balance operation is based on the piezoelectric effect of a quartz crystal. Depending on the load applied to the crystal, the magnitude of the electric signal, taken from the opposite faces of the crystal, changes. To protect the balance mechanism from the corrosive effect of decomposition products, the balance is arranged in a housing of volume about 1.5 L, which is temperature-controlled with running water, and the housing cavity can be purged with an inert gas. The internal volume of the furnace is about 200 mL and it can be purged independently with either an individual gas or a mixture of two gases in a preset ratio. The advantage of the piezoelectric balance is that the considerably higher measurement sensitivity provides a mass resolution of about 0.1 µg, against 25 µg for the mechanical balance. Owing to the smaller size of the balance, its temperature control is simpler, and the overall size of the thermal analyser is appreciably smaller. The mass of a fully equipped STA 429 thermal analyser is about 450 kg, and that of a STA 449 analyser, 120 kg (Fig. 14.1).


151

Fig. 14.1 A view of the STA 449 instrument

In both devices, the temperature in the range from 20◦ C to 1,700◦ C is measured with Pt–PtRh(10%) thermocouples. The temperature control involves feedback based on the comparison of the attained and preset temperatures. When setting the programme, the operator can vary the duration of the heating electric pulse and the time intervals between the moments of temperature comparison. Both thermal analysers are equipped with replaceable sample holders allowing various combinations of measurements depending on the task: a TG holder for monitoring the variation of the sample mass in the range from 20◦ C to 1, 700◦ C; a TG + DTA holder for monitoring the mass variation and thermal effects for samples weighing from 50 to 500 mg in the interval from 20◦ C to 1, 700◦ C; and a TG + DSC holder for monitoring the mass variation and enthalpies of transformations for samples weighing from 1 to 50 mg in the range from 20◦ C to 1,400◦ C. The mass ranges are the same for both devices. Figure 14.2 shows an example of the decomposition measurement of a 6 mg talc crystal in air with isothermal heating at 978◦ C, recorded with an STA 449 thermal analyser.

152


DSC (mW/mg)

TG (%)

↓

110 T

T (⬚C)

exo 1000

0.2

108

800

0 106

600 −0.2

104

400 DSC

TG

102

−0.4 200 −0.6

100

0

0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

Time (min) Fig. 14.2 TG and DSC curves for the decomposition of a monocrystal of talc in an atmosphere of air under isothermal conditions at 978◦ C obtained with an STA 449 instrument

A great advantage of the thermal analysers under consideration is the high accuracy of setting the heating temperature and its stable maintenance for several hours (with the deviations from the mean value being within 0.1–0.2◦ C). However, as applied to isothermal TG measurements, both these thermal analysers have certain shortcomings: significant and irreproducible baseline drift reaching 0.05–0.07 µg s−1 , lack of reliable devices for measuring the gas pressure in the furnace in the range 10−3 − 1 bar, and the relatively long time required to cool the furnace (up to 2–3 h), which restricts the number of runs that can be done within a workday.

References ˇ ak J (1984) Thermophysical properties of solids. Their measurements and theoretical 1. Sest´ thermal analysis. Academia, Prague 2. Boldyrev VV (1958) Methods for investigation of the kinetics of thermal decomposition of solids. Tomsk University Press, Tomsk (in Russian) 3. Wendland WW (1986) Thermal analysis, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York 4. Brown ME (2001) Introduction to thermal analysis: techniques and applications, 2nd edn. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht

Chapter 15

Measurement Conditions and Procedures for Isothermal Thermogravimetric Studies As follows from the consideration of the third-law method (Chapter 4), its use for determining the reaction enthalpy requires estimation of the equivalent pressure Peqp of the gaseous product under the conditions of free-surface vaporization of the reactant. This, in turn, involves determination of the absolute rate of decomposition J (kg m−2 s−1 ) and, hence, of the effective surface area of the decomposing sample. This problem, as applied to crystals, powders, and melts, is discussed below.

15.1

Evaluation of the Absolute Rate of Decomposition

Crystals For crystals, or pressed materials with a very low porosity, the effective surface area can be readily determined from the known sample geometry. It is convenient to use for this purpose an optical microscope with a scale and magnification of 20–30. The absolute rate of decomposition is evaluated by dividing the change in sample mass per unit time, ∆m/∆t, measured under isothermal conditions, by the area of the external surface of the crystal at the instant of the measurement sm , i.e., ∆m/∆t (15.1) sm For samples of a cubic shape and similarly for spherical particles, sm should decrease with an increase in the degree of decomposition α, in accordance with the “contracting sphere” equation: Jc =

sm = s0 (1 − α)2/3

(15.2)

where s0 is the initial surface area of the crystal. Equation 15.2 was used by Roginsky and Schultz [1] to characterize the reaction kinetics during steadystate decomposition with the aim of taking into account the deceleration caused by a decrease in the area of the crystal surface. Taking into account Eq. 15.2, Eq. 15.1 can be presented in the form: Jc =

∆m/∆t s0 (1 − α)2/3

(15.3)

As an example of the evaluation of the absolute rate, data for decomposition of a CaCO3 crystal in air are given in Table 15.1 (this procedure is discussed in detail in Sects. 15.4 and 15.5). 153

154

15 Isothermal Thermogravimetric Studies

Table 15.1 Absolute rate of CaCO3 decomposition in air at 995 K (crystal mass: 20 mg and s0 = 27 mm2 ) Time (min) ∆m/m(%) ∆m/∆t (µg s−1 ) ∆α αm (1 − αm )2/3 Jc (mg m−2 s−1 )

10 2.07 0.687 0.047 0.110 0.925 27.5

20 2.02 0.670 0.046 0.157 0.892 27.8

30 1.94 0.643 0.044 0.201 0.861 27.7

40 1.86 0.617 0.042 0.243 0.831 27.5

50 1.79 0.594 0.041 0.284 0.800 27.5

60 1.72 0.570 0.039 0.323 0.771 27.4

70 1.66 0.551 0.038 0.361 0.742 27.5

80 1.60 0.531 0.036 0.397 0.714 27.5

90 100 1.54 1.48 0.511 0.491 0.035 0.034 0.432 0.466 0.686 0.658 27.6 27.6

Some comments to Table 15.1 need to be given. The initial parameter, automatically recorded by the device, is the sample mass loss (∆m/m, %) in a chosen time interval between the signal readings (∆t). Usually this time interval is 5 or 10 min. From these data, the quantities ∆m/∆t(µg s−1 ) and ∆α = (∆m/m)/(bMB /MR ) were calculated, where MB and MR are the molar masses of the gaseous product and reactant, respectively. The quantity αm is calculated by summation of the ∆α values over the period preceding the given measurement, taking into account the preliminary loss ∆α0 in the time from the start of heating the furnace to the start of the measurements. It can be seen that, over a 100 min decomposition period (during which α increases from 0.11 to 0.47), Jc remains essentially constant and equal to (2.76 ± 0.01) × 10−5 kg m−2 s−1 . The enthalpy of the reaction, calculated by Eqs. 3.16 and 4.12 taking into account the quantities PBext = 4 × 10−4 bar, ◦ = 311.5 J mol−1 K−1 , is 497.8 kJ mol−1 . β = 0.886 and ∆r S995 Powders Estimation of the effective surface area of powders with an indeterminate number and size of particles is a complicated problem. This quantity can, in principle, be determined by the BET method. However, decomposition of a powder is not uniform in space. Because of self-cooling, internal layers of powdered samples are heated more weakly than the surface layers and, therefore, make a lower contribution to the total decomposition effect. A theoretical simulation of the powder decomposition rate was attempted by L’vov et al. [2, 3] in 1998 (Chapter 6). Later L’vov and Ugolkov [4] continued these theoretical and experimental studies with dolomite crystals and powders of various particle sizes. Calculations performed for powders with varied numbers of layers (n = 10 and 100), emittance coefficients ε (from 0.01 to 1), and residual air pressures in the reactor (10−4 and 10−7 bar) showed that the differences in the particle size and powder mass do not noticeably affect the temperature distribution and the effective number of powder layers ne (see Sect. 6.3) decomposing at the same rate as does the surface layer. Furthermore, it was found that the decomposition rates of crystals and powders with the same external surface area and ε coefficients ranging from 0.01 to 0.3 should differ by a factor of no more than 2.

15.1 Evaluation of the Absolute Rate of Decomposition

155

An experimental check of these conclusions showed that the apparent absolute rate of decomposition of powders (Jp ∗ ), related to the external surface area of a powder pellet, is always higher than that of crystals (Jc ). It was also found that the difference between the decomposition rates is independent of temperature, residual air pressure in the reactor, sample mass and powder particle size. The mean value of Jp ∗ /Jc was 2.8 ± 0.4. This value somewhat exceeds the theoretical estimate, which may be due to the rough external surface of the powder. Evidently, the area of a pimpled surface formed by spherical particles should be at least twice that of the flat surface. Thus, the true absolute rate of decomposition of powders (Jp ) is evaluated by dividing the change in sample mass per unit time, ∆m/∆t, measured under isothermal conditions, by the external surface area of a powder pellet at the instant of measurement, sm , multiplied by a factor of 2.8, i.e., Jp =

∆m/∆t 2.8sm

(15.4)

For a pellet whose diameter, d, exceeds its thickness, h, by an order of magnitude, a decrease in the surface area, sm , with an increase in the degree of decomposition, α, is mainly determined by a decrease in the pellet thickness (i.e., in the lateral surface area). Hence, sm = s0 − (s0 − πd2 /2)α

(15.5)

The initial data and results of calculating the absolute rate of decomposition of CaCO3 powder in air using Eqs. 15.4 and 15.5 are given in Table 15.2. The dimensions d and h were 5.7 and 0.4 mm, respectively, so that s0 = 58.2 mm2 . As seen from the table, during an 80 min decomposition period in which α increases from 0.216 to 0.665, the variations of Jp do not exceed 1%, with the mean value Jp = (6.14 ± 0.04) × 10−6 kg m−2 s−1 . Thus, Eq. 15.5 allows the variation of the surface area of a powder pellet in the course of decomposition to be taken into account quite adequately. The enthalpy of the reaction, calculated by Eqs. 3.16 and 4.12, taking into ◦ = account the quantities PBext = 4 × 10−4 bar, β = 0.886 and ∆r S970 −1 −1 −1 312.3 J mol K , is 498.4 kJ mol , which virtually coincides with the value

Table 15.2 Absolute rate of CaCO3 decomposition in air at 970 K (powder mass: 20 mg and s0 = 58.2 mm2 ) Time (min) ∆m/m (%) ∆m/∆t (µg s−1 ) ∆α αm a sm b (mm2 ) Jp (mg m−2 s−1 ) a b

10 2.94 0.98 0.067 0.216 56.7 6.17

20 2.87 0.96 0.065 0.281 56.2 6.10

Based on ∆α0 = 0.149 sm (mm2 ) = s0 − (s0 − 51.0)α

30 2.85 0.95 0.065 0.346 55.7 6.09

40 2.82 0.94 0.064 0.410 55.3 6.07

50 2.84 0.95 0.064 0.474 54.8 6.19

60 2.83 0.94 0.064 0.538 54.3 6.18

70 2.80 0.93 0.064 0.602 53.9 6.16

80 2.76 0.92 0.063 0.665 53.4 6.15

90 100 2.68 2.59 0.89 0.86 0.061 0.059 0.726 0.785 53.0 52.6 6.00 5.84

156


of 497.8 kJ mol−1 found above for a CaCO3 crystal. This fact once again confirms the correctness of the empirical factor 2.8 in Eq. 15.4. Melts A similar scheme for measuring the absolute rate of decomposition was applied to melts. To prevent spillage of the melt over the crucible surface in the course of heating, the reactant was taken as a 1:1 mixture with a neutral Al2 O3 powder. After melting of the reactant, this mixture preserves the structure of the Al2 O3 powder, so that the absolute rate of decomposition of the melt can be evaluated in the same way as described above for powders. This calculation scheme was applied in [5] to AgNO3 and Cd(NO3 )2 melts. The absolute rates obtained for mixtures of AgNO3 and Al2 O3 at different component ratios (1:1 and 1:5) were equal, confirming the correctness of this approach. It is also appropriate to use mixtures of a reactant and a neutral Al2 O3 powder for reactants that undergo a phase transition before reaching the measurement temperature, so that the size of a pellet prepared from the individual reactant may decrease relative to the initial size (as an example, see Table 16.57). The size of the mixed pellet remains constant.

15.2

Choice of the Decomposition Temperature

The choice of the temperature is governed by the conditions of reliable measurement of the primary signal, ∆m/∆t. The lower limit of measuring this signal depends on the stability of the analyser baseline. According to experimental estimates, with the devices, STA 429 and STA 449, the variations in blank experiments reach 0.05–0.07 µg s−1 . Therefore, it is desirable that the measured signal should exceed at least 0.2–0.3 µg s−1 (overestimation of the signal by a factor of 1.3 leads to underestimation of the determined enthalpy by −RT ln1.3, i.e., by −2.2 kJ mol−1 at 1,000 K). The upper limit of the signal is determined by ensuring the steady-state decomposition mode for a period of 30–40 min required for the measurement. The corresponding values of ∆m/∆t are usually 2–3 µg s−1 . This limit depends to some extent on the ratio of the mass of volatile decomposition products to the total sample mass (bMB /MR ). If only gaseous decomposition products are formed, the upper limit of the decomposition rate can be increased. However, in this case, the temperature difference between the sample (especially if it is a powder) and the crucible increases, which may lead to ejection of the sample from the crucible. Thus, the optimal range for measuring the primary signals is relatively narrow, typically from 0.3 to 3 µg s−1 . The equivalent pressures of decomposition products corresponding to these rates are usually about 10−7 − 10−6 bar.

15.3 Choice of the Residual Pressure of Gas in the Reactor

15.3

157

Choice of the Residual Pressure of Gas in the Reactor (Equimolar Mode)

The free-surface vaporization condition means the absence of any diffusion limitations to the removal of gaseous products from the surface of a decomposing substance. This is usually provided by maintaining a high vacuum in the reactor (≤10−7 bar). However, in many cases, this measure is excessive. The permissible pressure of a foreign (inert) gas in the reactor can be readily estimated by comparing the decomposition rate in a high vacuum with that in the presence of an inert gas, described by a one-dimensional Langmuir diffusion Eq. 3.8 γM DPeq J= zRT where D is the diffusion coefficient of a gaseous product in an inert gas, and z is the distance from the evaporation surface to the outlet where the concentration of molecules decreases to zero. The presence of an inert gas can be neglected if γM Peq γM DPeq ≥ zRT (2πM RT )1/2 This means that

D≥z

RT 2πM

(15.6)

1/2 (15.7)

If it is taken into account that [6] P0 D∼ = D0 P

T T0

1.8 (15.8)

where P0 = 1 bar, T0 = 273 K, and D0 ∼ = 2 × 10−5 m2 s−1 (for the diffusion of O2 , CO, CO2 , and H2 O in argon, air or nitrogen [6]), and assuming that M = 0.05 kg mol−1 and z = 4 mm = 4 × 10−3 m (height of the crucible with the sample), then the permissible pressure P of an inert gas in a reactor can be estimated from the relationship P ≤ 4 × 10−8 T 1.3

(15.9)

It follows from Eq. 15.9 that P ∼ = 3 × 10−4 bar at 1,000 K and 2 × 10−4 bar at 700 K. This permits the use of only a mechanical pump to ensure the free-surface vaporization conditions. For example, the dolomite decomposition rates at 800 K and residual air pressure in the reactor of 2 × 10−4 and 8 × 10−8 bar virtually coincide: 2.3 × 10−5 and 1.8 × 10−5 kg m2 s−1 [4] (the slightly higher rate in a low vacuum is most probably due to weaker self-cooling). Limitations Despite apparent advantages (simpler evacuation and weaker selfcooling), a low vacuum (about 10−4 bar) cannot be used in the equimolar mode of decomposition if the equivalent pressure of the gaseous product is

158


comparable with, or lower than the pressure of this component in the residual air. This primarily concerns substances decomposing with the release of N2 and/or O2 . The content of other possible gaseous products in the residual air in the reactor is considerably lower: within 10−8 –10−7 bar for CO2 and about 10−6 bar for H2 O vapour; the latter value, however, is comparable with the equivalent pressure. Therefore, measurements in a low vacuum can give insufficiently reliable results when studying dehydration, and essentially incorrect results when studying decompositions of oxides and nitrides (and also other compounds decomposing with the release of O2 or N2 ). However, in studying the decompositions of sulfides, selenides, tellurides, and carbonates, the use of a low vacuum is quite justified. In particular, experiments on the decomposition of dolomite [4] and of Mg, Ca, Sr, and Ba carbonates [7–9] were performed in a low vacuum.

15.4

Decomposition in the Presence of the Gaseous Product (Isobaric Mode)

The above limitations concern the equimolar decomposition mode. For the isobaric decomposition mode and for the corresponding measurements and calculations, the pattern is different. The major requirement of the isobaric mode of measurements is the need to determine the excess pressure of the gaseous product in the reactor at the instant of the measurements. Depending on the reaction type (number of stable gaseous decomposition products), the ranges of permissible variation of the pressures of the gaseous product and foreign gas are different. Two different situations can be distinguished. Reactions Yielding Two or More Stable Gaseous Products In this case, the excess pressure of one of the gaseous products can be increased to a level not exceeding 10−4 bar. At higher pressures, diffusion limitations to the removal of the second gaseous product arise, and the calculation using the Hertz– Langmuir equation (under the free-surface vaporization conditions) becomes inadequate. Thus, the excess pressure of the gaseous product should be in the range from 10−6 to 10−4 bar. The maximum pressure of foreign (inert) gases is also limited to 10−4 bar. Reactions Yielding a Single Stable Gaseous Product The isobaric mode becomes more attractive when applied to decompositions yielding a single stable gaseous product. Here the excess pressure of the gaseous product can be varied without limit (it can even exceed the atmospheric pressure), because the other products (low-volatility or reactive intermediate species such as, e.g., free O or N atoms) occur in the non-equilibrium state and, irrespective of the presence of a gas, should instantaneously condense with the formation of a solid phase or recombine into stable molecules. The pressure of a foreign gas can also be varied without limit.

15.5 Decomposition of Hydrates in Air and Carbonates in Argon and Air

159

Advantages of this procedure are elimination or minimization of the reactant self-cooling in the course of the decomposition, simpler measurement procedures with a foreign gas atmosphere, and the possibility of varying the decomposition temperature in a wide range by varying the excess pressure of the gaseous product. The only complication is that it is necessary to estimate and control the excess pressure of the gaseous product at the instant of measurement. This reasoning is valid only for congruent dissociative vaporization when all the primary decomposition products, in accordance with Eqs. 3.20 and 3.21, obey the laws of equilibrium thermodynamics. If this is so, then the enthalpies determined in a high vacuum (equimolar mode) by Eq. 3.20 and in an atmosphere of foreign gases (isobaric mode) by Eq. 3.21 should be equal. Their comparison is of much interest for confirming or refuting the CDV mechanism.

15.5

Decomposition of Hydrates in Air and Carbonates in Argon and Air

Among reactions yielding a single stable gaseous product are the dehydrations of hydrates and the decompositions of carbonates. L’vov and Ugolkov recently published a series of papers on the kinetics of decomposition of these compounds in various modes [4, 7–11]. All the experiments in a vacuum were performed with an STA 429 thermal analyser. The measurements were performed under isothermal conditions with continuous evacuation of the furnace chamber to a pressure of n × 10−8 bar. Experiments on the dehydration of Li2 SO4 · H2 O, kaolinite, muscovite, and talc [10, 11] in the isobaric mode were performed in air. The partial vapour pressure of H2 O was estimated with a digital thermohygrometer (relative humidity) and from the known saturated vapour pressure of H2 O (see Appendix, Table A6) at the ambient air temperature. Experiments on the decompositions of carbonates were performed in argon with an addition of CO2 (0.1 bar for CaCO3 and SrCO3 , and 0.001 bar for BaCO3 ) [9]. In principle, as shown in Sects. 15.1 and 16.13, the kinetics of the carbonate decompositions can also be studied in air. The only shortcoming of this procedure is that the CO2 content can vary over its minimum concentration (0.038%) in a relatively wide range (up to 0.1% in towns). However, if a mean value for the CO2 content, 0.060%, is taken, the maximum error in the enthalpy determination, brought about by this variation, should not exceed 4 kJ mol−1 . The averaged results of these studies are given in Tables 15.3 and 15.4. For all the compounds, the enthalpies determined in a high vacuum are fairly close to those determined in an atmosphere of foreign gases (at similar temperatures),

160


Table 15.3 The reaction enthalpies for the decompositions of carbonates measured by the third-law method in a vacuum and in argon (with an addition of CO2 ) Reactant

Sample

∆r HT◦ (kJ mol−1 ) Vacuum Argon

CaCO3 SrCO3 BaCO3

Crystal Powder Powder

540 ± 4 572 ± 9 611 ± 11

Difference (%)

Ref.

9.2 1.4 1.0

[7–9] [7–9] [7–9]

490 ± 3 564 ± 11 605 ± 1

Table 15.4 The dehydration enthalpies measured by the third-law method in a vacuum and air (with regard to the refinements noted in Sects. 15.9 and 15.10) Reactant

Sample

Li2 SO4 · H2 O Al2 O3 · 2SiO2 · 2H2 O K2 O · 3Al2 O3 · 6SiO2 · 2H2 O 3MgO · 4SiO2 · H2 O

Crystal Powder Crystal Crystal

∆r HT◦ (kJ mol−1 ) Vacuum Air 210 ± 2 1, 058 ± 6 3, 949 ± 40 2, 817 ± 10

192 ± 2 978 ± 16 3, 506 ± 19 2, 612 ± 16

Difference (%) Ref. 9.2 8.2 12.6 7.8

[10] [10] [10] [10, 11]

but always exceed them. The differences in ∆r HT◦ for powder samples are 1–8%, but for crystals they are 8–13%, significantly exceeding the random scatter (about 1–2%). The results obtained are fully consistent with the CDV mechanism. Systematically lower values of ∆r HT◦ in an atmosphere of foreign gases confirm the expected trend that the decreased self-cooling effect should make the measurements in an atmosphere of foreign gases more reliable compared to highvacuum measurements. Unfortunately, ambient air is unsuitable as an atmosphere for studying decomposition of metal hydroxides because of the presence of approximately 0.04% CO2 which reacts with metal oxides with partial formation of thermally stable carbonates. This conclusion was checked [10] by the example of the dehydration of Mg(OH)2 (brucite). The rate of its decomposition in air at 650 K appeared to be 20–30 times lower than the calculated decomposition rate in a CO2 -free atmosphere (MgCO3 formed in the process starts to decompose above 650 K even in a vacuum).

15.6

Equilibrium Constant for Reactions with Three or More Decomposition Products

Previously (Sects. 3.4 and 3.5) a scheme was considered for calculating the partial pressures of products and equilibrium constants of decomposition reactions yielding two products. For the formation of three or more products, consideration of the decomposition congruence is more complicated.

15.6 Equilibrium Constant for Reactions with Three or More Decomposition Products 161

For a reaction of the general form R(s/l) ↔ aA(g)↓ + bB(g) + cC(g)

(15.10)

the dependence of the partial pressures of the products on the overall decomposition rate, JΣ , is given by the set of Eqs. 15.11–15.13: PA =

a(2πMA RT )1/2 JΣ γ(bMB + cMC )

(15.11)

PB =

b(2πMB RT )1/2 JΣ γ(bMB + cMC )

(15.12)

PC =

c(2πMC RT )1/2 JΣ γ(bMB + cMC )

(15.13)

The factor in parentheses in the denominator of these equations corresponds to the molar mass of the gaseous decomposition products. If no solid products are formed, it is equal to the molar mass of the reactant, MR . The equilibrium constant of reaction (15.10) can be calculated from the partial pressure of any product in accordance with the equations (PA )ν δA (PB )ν KP (B) = δB (PC )ν KP (C) = δC

KP (A) =

(15.14) (15.15) (15.16)

In turn, the coefficient δ, in accordance with the congruence condition, taking into account the apparent equality KP (A) = KP (B) = KP (C), is calculated by the following set of equations: A b A c ) (βC ) δA = (βB

(15.17)

B a B c ) (βC ) δB = (βA

(15.18)

C a C b ) (βB ) δC = (βA

(15.19)

where A = βB A βC

a b

a = c

MA MB MA MC

1/2 (15.20) 1/2 (15.21)

162


B βA

b = a

B βC = C βA

b c

c = a

C = βB

c b

MB MA MB MC MC MA MC MB

1/2 (15.22) 1/2 (15.23) 1/2 (15.24) 1/2 (15.25)

References 1. Roginsky S, Schultz E (1928) Z phys Chem A138:21–41; Ukr Khim Zh 3:177–207 (in Russian) 2. L’vov BV, Novichikhin AV, Dyakov AO (1998) Thermochim Acta 315:135–143 3. L’vov BV, Novichikhin AV, Dyakov AO (1998) Thermochim Acta 315:169–179 4. L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2003) Thermochim Acta 401:139–147 5. L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2004) Thermochim Acta 424:7–13 6. Kikoin IK (1976) (ed) Tables of physical constants. Atomizdat, Moscow (in Russian) 7. L’vov BV, Polzik LK, Ugolkov VL (2002) Thermochim Acta 390:5–19 8. L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2004) Thermochim Acta 409:13–18 9. L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2004) Thermochim Acta 410:47–55 10. L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2005) Russ J Appl Chem 78:379–385 11. L’vov BV, Ugolkov VL (2005) J Therm Anal Cal 82:15–22

Chapter 16

Sublimation and Decomposition Reactions 16.1

Non-metals (phosphorus)

Introduction Sublimation of white and red phosphorus has been examined in numerous studies summarized in [1]. Of particular interest is the enormous difference between the evaporation rates of white and red phosphorus, reaching 6–7 orders of magnitude according to the existing estimates [2–4]. The lowvapour pressure of red phosphorus was attributed, in all these studies, to complicated removal of phosphorus in the form of the most stable tetrahedral P4 molecules from the surface of triclinic red phosphorus containing no such fragments in the crystal structure. In 1997, L’vov and Novichikhin [5] compared the experimental (measured by the second-law method) and calculated enthalpies of vaporization and concluded that vaporization of red phosphorus occurs with the formation of P2 rather than P4 molecules (see Sect. 10.3). Results and Discussion This conclusion is also confirmed by the data given below, obtained by the third-law method. The thermodynamic functions required to determine the enthalpy are given in Table 16.1. Only one paper published by Melville and Gray [2] 70 years ago was found, in which the equivalent pressure of red phosphorus was measured under the free-surface vaporization conditions (after Langmuir). The vapour pressure in this study was determined in the range 578–673 K from the mass of the vapour condensate (Table 16.2). The quantities ∆r HT◦ determined from these data by the third-law method were compared in the same table with the calculated ∆r HT◦ values for the reaction (16.1) 2P(s, red) ↔ P2 (g) Comparison of the data given in Table 16.2 shows that the difference between the experimental and calculated values at various temperatures reaches 10–20%. Nevertheless, this agreement can be considered as satisfactory, taking into account the poor reproducibility of the initial data [2]. For comparison, the enthalpy and entropy of vaporization of white phosphorus at 600 K in accordance with the reaction 4P(s, white) ↔ P4 (g) −1

−1

(16.2)

−1

are 47.3 kJ mol and 86.0 J mol K , respectively. Hence, the equilibrium vapour pressure over white phosphorus at 600 K should reach 2.4 bar, exceeding by 9 orders of magnitude the experimental vapour pressure over red phosphorus. 163

164

16 Sublimation and Decomposition Reactions

Table 16.1 Species

Values of the thermodynamic functions for phosphorus [6, 7] T (K)

P(s, red) P(s, white) P2 (g) P4 (g) P(s, red) P2 (g) P4 (g)

600 600 600 600 700 700 700

∆f HT◦ (kJ mol−1 )

ST◦ (J mol−1 K−1 )

−10.5 8.5 153.9 81.3 −7.6 157.6 89.2

39.3 61.3 241.7 331.2 43.3 247.2 343.4

Table 16.2 Vapour pressure above red phosphorus under conditions of its free-surface vaporization [2] and the enthalpy of reaction (16.1) T (K) 578 623 623 623 673 673

16.2

Peqp (bar)

∆r ST◦ (J mol−1 K−1 )

1.3E−9 4.8E−9 4.7E−9 3.6E−9 1.2E−8 8.5E−9

163.7 162.5 162.5 162.5 161.3 161.3

∆r HT◦ (kJ mol−1 ) Theory Expt 175.4 174.4 174.4 174.4 173.4 173.4

192.0 200.5 200.6 201.9 210.6 212.5

Metalloids (Arsenic, Antimony)

Introduction Arsenic and antimony, like red phosphorus, vaporize more slowly than expected from their thermochemical properties. L’vov and Novichikhin [5], based on the results obtained by Rosenblatt et al. [8], attributed this difference to the fact that both elements vaporize, not in the form of the most stable molecules As4 and Sb4 , but with detachment of two molecules from the surface: 6As(s) ↔ As4 (g) + As2 (g) 6Sb(s) ↔ Sb4 (g) + Sb2 (g)

(16.3) (16.4)

The refined results of this thermochemical analysis are given below. The thermodynamic functions required for the calculation are given in Table 16.3, and the theoretically calculated and experimentally measured enthalpies of the corresponding reactions, in Table 16.4. Results and Discussion The initial data for calculating the enthalpy by the third-law method were the equivalent pressures measured for both elements under the free-surface vaporization conditions (after Langmuir) in [8]. The quantities ∆r HT◦ were also determined in [8] by the second-law method. Table 16.4 shows that the results obtained by the second- and third-law methods are quite consistent. The agreement between the calculated and

16.3 Oxides

165

Table 16.3

Values of the thermodynamic functions for arsenic and antimony [6, 7]

Species

T ∆f HT◦ ST◦ (K) (kJ mol−1 ) (J mol−1 K−1 )

Species

T ∆f HT◦ (K) (kJ mol−1 )

As(s) As2 (g) As4 (g) As(s) As2 (g) As4 (g)

500 500 500 600 600 600

Sb(s) Sb2 (g) Sb4 (g) Sb(s) Sb2 (g) Sb4 (g)

600 600 600 700 700 700

5.1 201.0 159.8 7.8 204.7 168.0

48.7 260.9 370.9 53.4 267.6 385.7

ST◦ (J mol−1 K−1 )

7.9 250.2 230.0 10.7 254.0 238.2

62.0 282.8 409.3 66.2 288.5 423.0

Table 16.4 Vapour pressure above arsenic and antimony under conditions of their freesurface vaporization [2] and the molar enthalpies of reactions (16.3) and (16.4) Element As(s) Sb(s)

T (K)

Peqp (bar)

∆r ST◦ /ν (J mol−1 K−1 )

Theory

550 650

6.6E−10 1.3E−09

168.1 158.6

164.0 215.2

∆r HT◦ /ν (kJ mol−1 ) Second-law Third-law 183 ± 6 207 ± 9

189.1 213.7

Table 16.5 Calculated (theory) and experimental values of vaporization coefficients for P(red), As and Sb Element

T (K)

Primary Products

Peqp (bar)


Peq (bar)

P(s, red) As(s) Sb(s)

600 550 650

P2 As4 + As2 Sb4 + Sb2

2.3E−07 1.6E−07 9.8E−10

P4 As4 Sb4

2.3E−02 9.9E−05 3.0E−08

αv Theory Expt 1E−05 2E−03 3E−02

1E−06 5E−04 2E−01

Ref. [3] [3] [8]

experimental data was very good for Sb and satisfactory for As. The 12– 15% discrepancy may be caused by errors in the thermodynamic functions. ◦ of the As2 molecule is 233.1 rather than According to Kireev [9], ∆f H600 −1 204.7 kJ mol . If so, the calculated enthalpy will increase to 178.2 kJ mol−1 and the discrepancy will decrease to 3–6%. The discrepancies between the calculated and experimental vaporization coefficients of P, As, and Sb do not exceed an order of magnitude (Table 16.5), which is quite acceptable taking into account the experimental errors. The correlation between the composition of products formed in vaporization of phosphorus, arsenic and antimony, and the crystal structures of these elements was discussed in Sect. 10.3.

16.3

Oxides

Introduction Decomposition of oxides with the release of atomic oxygen was apparently the first revealed case where the composition of primary decomposition products deviated from the equilibrium composition. More than 40 years ago, using the colour changes during the reaction of MoO3 with atomic

166


oxygen (pale yellow MoO3 transforms into blue Mo3 O8 in accordance with the reaction 3MoO3 + O → Mo3 O8 + O2 ), Mitani and Harano [10] showed that, during the decompositions of ZnO, HgO, CuO, and PtO2 in a vacuum, oxygen is partially released in the atomic form. The same property was later discovered for Fe2 O3 , MnO2 , and Co3 O4 [11]. A similar effect was also revealed by Malinin et al. [12] in the decomposition Pb3 O4 , from the characteristic blackening of the platinum crucible walls. (Strange though it may seem, these facts still remain unnoticed when discussing specific features of vaporization of the above-mentioned oxides [13, 14]). Results and Discussion The first attempt of a thermochemical analysis of the mechanism of HgO vaporization was made by L’vov [15]. The initial experimental data were those obtained by Derbinsky et al. [16] and Pavlyuchenko [17] on the decomposition of HgO in a vacuum, in oxygen, and in the presence of mercury vapour. Analysis of primary data from Derbinsky et al. [16], made by L’vov [15], showed that mean molar enthalpy (parameter E) of vaporization of five different HgO samples at T > 650 K was 193 ± 8 kJ mol−1 (n = 8) in a vacuum and 201.7 ± 3 kJ mol−1 (n = 3) in O2 . These values are consistent with the theoretical value E = 200.8 kJ mol−1 for the reaction HgO(s) ↔ Hg(g) + O

(16.5)

and differ essentially from the value of 101.5 kJ mol−1 for the reaction HgO(s) ↔ Hg(g) + 1/2 O2

(16.6)

There are additional arguments in favour of Reaction 16.5. Above all, molecular oxygen does not affect the quantity E compared to the vacuum [16]. On the other hand, when HgO was decomposed in the presence of mercury vapour (800 Torr), the decomposition temperature increased by 130◦ C and E, to 430 kJ mol−1 [17]. In the latter case, the theoretically expected value of E should be twice that for a vacuum, i.e., about 400 kJ mol−1 . The mechanisms of decomposition of zinc and mercury oxides were further studied in [18]. The rates of vaporization of ZnO and HgO in a vacuum were measured with the aim of subsequent thermochemical analysis of the decomposition products by the third-law method. The thermodynamic functions required for the calculation are given in Table 16.6, and the conditions and results of the experiments, in Table 16.7. In this book, as compared to [18], the refined calculation scheme was used: the condition of congruent vaporization was taken into account and the molar enthalpy (parameter E) was calculated using Eq. 4.14. Also, variation of the surface area of a powder pellet in the course of decomposition (see Sect. 15.1) was taken into account with Eq. 15.5 instead of Eq. 15.2. These refinements ultimately led to a slight increase in the final values of E. The mean value of E for HgO was 187.5±0.3 kJ mol−1 , which is 7% lower than that given by the thermochemical calculation (201 kJ mol−1 ), whereas

16.3 Oxides

167

Table 16.6 Values of the thermodynamic functions for ZnO and HgO and products of their decompositions [6, 9] Species

T (K)

ZnO(s) Zn(g) O2 (g) O(g) ZnO(s) Zn(g) O2 (g) O(g)

1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300

∆f HT◦ ST◦ Species (kJ mol−1 ) (J mol−1 K−1 ) −305.6 149.3 38.4 272.5 −300.1 151.4 42.0 274.6

111.7 189.8 249.9 190.5 116.1 191.5 252.8 192.2

HgO(s) Hg(g) O2 (g) O(g) HgO(s) Hg(g) O2 (g) O(g)

T ∆f HT◦ ST◦ (K) (kJ mol−1 ) (J mol−1 K−1 ) 600 600 600 600 700 700 700 700

−75.5 67.8 17.9 260.0 −69.9 69.8 21.2 262.1

105.7 189.5 226.3 176.0 114.2 192.5 231.4 179.2

Table 16.7 The experimental conditions and results of determination of the molar enthalpies of vaporization of ZnO (m0 = 20 mg) and HgO (m0 = 40 mg) by the thirdlaw method (s0 = 57.3 mm2 ) Oxide Pair T αm ∆m/∆t Ja Peqp ∆r ST◦ /ν ∆r HT◦ /ν −2 −1 −1 −1 −1 (bar) (K) (µg s ) (kg m s ) (bar) (J mol K ) (kJ mol−1 ) ZnO 5E−08 1255.3 0.018 0.220 1.37E−06 7.75E−09 134.1 363.3 ZnO 5E−08 1255.5 0.005 0.073 4.56E−07 2.58E−09 134.1 374.8 ZnO 5E−08 1255.4 0.005 0.100 6.25E−07 3.54E−09 134.1 371.5 ZnO 5E−04 1257.6 0.001 0.052 3.30E−07 1.87E−09 134.1 378.8 ZnO 5E−04 1257.2 0.002 0.061 3.80E−07 2.15E−09 134.1 377.2 HgO 5E−04 681.0 0.055 1.82 1.15E−05 1.27E−08 129.0 187.2 HgO 5E−04 711.0 0.212 6.28 3.98E−05 4.46E−08 128.7 187.8 a J = (∆m/∆t)/(2.8 s ) 0

for ZnO (373 ± 6 kJ mol−1 ) it exceeds the calculated value (363 kJ mol−1 ) by 3%. The latter discrepancy can be attributed to an error in the measurement of the initial ∆m/∆t values, which were below the level of reliable measurement (about 0.2 µg s−1 ). Only one measurement was an exception (0.220 µg s−1 ); the corresponding value of E = 363 kJ mol−1 coincides with the calculated value. A comparison of the vaporization kinetics of ZnO and HgO in pure nitrogen and in air, made in [18], revealed no differences in the rates, which confirms the above assumption that oxygen is released in the form of free atoms (if oxygen were released in the molecular form, the difference would reach two orders of magnitude). The calculated vaporization coefficients of both oxides are given in Table 16.8. The considerably lower coefficient αv for HgO is due to the lower vaporization temperature, at which the relative content of atomic oxygen deviates from the equilibrium content more strongly. On the whole, the thermochemical analysis reliably confirms the mechanism of dissociative vaporization of ZnO and HgO with the release of atomic oxygen. The correlation between the composition of the primary products and the crystal structure of both oxides was discussed in Sect. 10.1.

168


Table 16.8 Calculated values of the vaporization coefficients for zinc and mercury oxides Oxide

T (K)

Primary Products

Peqp (bar)


Peq (bar)

αv

ZnO HgO

1,250 700

Zn(g) + O Hg(g) + O

6.6E−09 3.0E−08

Zn(g) + 1/2 O2 Hg(g) + 1/2 O2

7.3E−07 1.9E−01

9E−03 2E−07

16.4

Higher oxides

Introduction Higher oxides of Group IV metals (SiO2 , GeO2 , and SnO2 ), according to many studies, in particular, [14, 19–23], are characterized by relatively low vaporization coefficients. Therefore, taking into account the release of atomic oxygen in decomposition of Pb3 O4 [12], one can assume that this is due to decomposition of all these oxides with the release of oxygen in the form of free atoms. Using published data on the vaporization of SnO2 from a free surface (after Langmuir) and an effusion cell (after Knudsen) [22], and also the results of recent studies of L’vov and Ugolkov (unpublished) of the dissociative vaporization of Pb3 O4 , the experimental enthalpies are compared with their calculated values for the alternative schemes of decomposition with the release of free oxygen in the form of O2 molecules or of O atoms only. For SiO2 and GeO2 , primary data on the rates of free-surface vaporization are lacking. Therefore, the consideration below is restricted to a comparison of the vaporization coefficients, calculated assuming the decomposition of the oxides to atomic and molecular oxygen, with the experimental values of αv given in [19, 20, 23]. The thermodynamic functions required for the calculations are given in Table 16.9. Decomposition of SnO2 Data on the dissociative sublimation of SnO2 from an effusion cell (after Knudsen) and a free surface (after Langmuir), obtained by Hoenig and Searcy [22], are given in Fig. 16.1 and Table 16.10. Also presented are the molar enthalpies of the assumed processes that were determined by L’vov, using data from Hoenig and Searcy [22], by the second-law method (Fig. 16.1) and by the third-law method and thermochemical calculations (Table 16.10). Comparison of these results allows the following conclusions. •

The results of effusion measurements are in excellent agreement with the results of a thermochemical calculation for the dissociative decomposition of SnO2 to SnO + 1/2O2 . The mean molar enthalpy measured by the thirdlaw method (397.0 ± 1.8 kJ mol−1 ) is very close to the averaged value of ∆r HT◦ /ν for the thermochemical calculation (393.8 ± 0.8 kJ mol−1 ). The value measured by the second-law method, 390.3 kJ mol−1 , is slightly (by

Thermal Decomposition of Solids and Melts: New Thermochemical Approach to the Mechanism, Kinetics and Methodology

Thermal Decomposition of Solids and Melts: New Thermochemical Approach to the Mechanism, Kinetics and Methodology (Hot Topics in Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry)

Radical Polymerization: Kinetics and Mechanism

The Thermal Decomposition of Ozone

Chemical Kinetics of Solids

Metastable Solids from Undercooled Melts

Molecular approach to solids

Thermal Decomposition of Ionic Solids -Chemical Properties and Reactivities of Ionic Crystalline Phases

Kinetics and Mechanism of Reactions of Transition Metal Complexes

Kinetics and Mechanism of Reactions of Transition Metal Complexes

Thermal Decomposition of Ionic Solids (Studies in Physical and Theoretical Chemistry)

The Enzymes, Vol II: Kinetics and Mechanism, 3rd Edition

The Enzymes, Vol II: Kinetics and Mechanism, 3rd Edition

The Interpretation of the Thermal Decomposition of Nitrous Oxide

The Thermal Decomposition of Acetone in the Gaseous State

Adsorption by Powders and Porous Solids: Principles, Methodology and Applications

Thermochemical data of elements and compounds

Thermochemical Processes: Principles and Models

The Thermal Decomposition of Nitrogen Pentoxide at Low Pressures

The Heterogeneous Thermal Decomposition of Ammonia in Strong Electric Fields

Thermochemical Processes: Principles and Models

Enzyme Kinetics A Modern Approach

Chemical kinetics: fundamentals and new developments

Propellants and Explosives: Thermochemical Aspects of Combustion

Enzyme Kinetics: A Modern Approach

Electrochemical Thermodynamics and Kinetics

Mechanics of solids and materials

Mechanics of Solids and Materials

The Decomposition of Walsh and Fourier Series

The thermal properties of solids (Solid-state physics)

New Drug Development: Design, Methodology, and Analysis

Thermal Decomposition of Solids and Melts: New Thermochemical Approach to the Mechanism, Kinetics and Methodology